Support NeoGAF

[unbias]

Sure. But the point is, Steam has competition from those other platforms. Xbox has competition from PS4 and (I guess) Wii U in terms of providing value. If Xbox One's marketplace never has price cuts and PS4's does, Microsoft will lose sales. That competition will force them to be competitive like GMG forces Steam.

The market is much smaller with console makers competition wise, while collusion is too strong a word, the console makers essentially have an oligopoly, where they can force things through that just dont have any proper recourse for the consumer. Any real major shifts will be as a togetherness, for the most part. This is why most people believe even sony will do something about used games. The only way I can see you having a point is if Sony doesnt do anything to the 2nd hand market.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

First you have to shell out extra money to buy a PS4 or Wii U. All of those PC clients are free, and most don't even require a separate download.

Sure but they're still in competition. If Microsoft released all new games for $70 and Sony $60, Sony would sell more hardware because their platform is more appealing. Microsoft don't live in a bubble where they can ignore market trends. I think we've seen from both Sony and Microsoft as of late they've been having more sales on digital product exactly because Steam has become so popular and competitive in that area.

 

[DaMan121]

Without any hard stats on how much liquidity used sales bring to the market, it will be an 'interesting' business experiment. Come November/December with a dozen blockbuster AAA games all priced at full RRP..

 

[DrLazy]

People dont buy full price after the first week because the industry has them trained to wait for the quick price drops and goty editions.

Please. Maybe on steam (where the developer gets royalties). But if a game is a month old, it's likely going to be on a used shelf unless it has online multiplayer.

Why do you think we get so few single player titles these days? Everything needs a death match mode.

 

[Mifune]

Man, it makes me so sad to see game journalists essentially doing PR for these big companies that are trying to screw over the consumer. One of the good things about the "enthusiast press" was that they were the voice of the gamers. Yes, at times they could be unprofessional and their articles could be amateurish but they were gamers at heart. Now so many of these writers and outlets feel like they are bought and paid for by the publishers.

Anyway, can anyone point me to any hard evidence of the catastrophic damage that used game sales are inflicting upon the industry? Anyone?

 

[Kingbrave]

Why do you think budgets are so high? The only way to make money is to sell the games week 1, not slowly build momentum for some low-hype art title. Have you noticed that XBLA, PSN, WiiWare, Steam are the only places where you see mid-tier games anymore? Used-games hurt the industry and the gamer.

Why are budgets so high? Because management tries to make every game the next COD. That's just not reasonable. They start spending millions on marketing and then when the product doesn't sell...it's pirates, or used games!

Never mind the thought that the game might just suck or be so niche that its going to be possible to make any money at all.

I personally don't buy used games. I do lend my friends games and that leads to them buying other games of the like they would of never even thought of before.

Edit: And why are the publishes assuming that pirates or used game buyers are gonna just say "Hey, I guess I'll buy new now! You got me!" A used game sale or pirate doesn't equal a lost sale.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Man, it makes me so sad to see game journalists essentially doing PR for these big companies that are trying to screw over the consumer. One of the good things about the "enthusiast press" was that they were the voice of the gamers. Yes, at times they could be unprofessional and their articles could be amateurish but they were gamers at heart. Now so many of these writers and outlets feel like they are bought and paid for by the publishers.

Anyway, can anyone point me to any hard evidence of the catastrophic damage that used game sales are inflicting upon the industry? Anyone?

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

 

[jetjevons]

The most ironic and scary thing about these anti-consumer practices is that even if they manage to "succeed", the real problems will remain in place, forcing even more questionable ideas in the near future.

In other words, if allowed, it will get worse for the consumer.

It doesn't *have* to. There's a reality in which eliminating used game sales and piracy actually results in significantly more first run copies of a game being sold. That larger audience and greater revenue stream *could* potentially be harnessed for the good of said game's community. Though I do acknowledge that's unlikely.

 

[Htown]

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

There's no reason we have to accept their bullshit because they've decided to be idiots.

 

[Hawkins]

The best thing about locking the system down as much as possible just means that it will be hacked sooner. So enjoy the game hacks because it's locked down so much.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

They've never gotten that money in the history of gaming, books, movies or music. It's stupid to think that money would be there.

It's like saying I have negative amount of dollars because everybody on NeoGAF owes me $10.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Most are chasing that COD dollar and COD break out hit for their own franchises

COD stands out for the reason, that most purchase it, and never sell it back, which in turn forces those waiting (2nd hand sale users/buyers) to bite the bullet and join the masses and purchase a copy for themselves
So that's why you get record number of purchases right off the bat, and every month there after till the next one drops
It's the scarcity of the used version, that isn't there to be gobbled up, which most publishers don't realize why COD sells they way it does and why and harms all other publishers

COD cannibalizes other franchises by removing the user want to need to purchase new content from others, it satiates them with MP + DLC map packs

Usually it would be you buy publisher/dev A game for $60, then 2-3 months later resell for $30+ and buy publisher/dev B game for $60 (only need $30 extra now), don't like it too short, resell quickly < 1 month $40-$50+, then publisher/dev C game for $60 (now you need only $10-$20 investment) etc.
3 $60 titles, $180 MSRP total, played for $100-$120
COD just breaks that cycle, it comes in and creates a vacuum for the eco-system
It gobbles up so many sales, that other publishers hurt, then the flipping process needed to subsidize 3 publishers/devs is no more
COD alone takes away the $60 for itself, then the Map Packs/Service offered for $15/month or $50 total, so it eats that full $110 that could have gone to 3 pubs/devs

Now pubs/devs see this and try to match that COD formula and so far have failed miserably on every attempt, nothing has dethroned it
Then following in those footsteps have left waves/wakes of such disaster for the community, that going back to look for survivors is moot, keep looking forward, just be ahead of the crashing wave, if we push hard and fast, we will survive, sooner or latter we will get swallowed, hoping they can escape it

 

[unbias]

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

So what you are saying is they are clueless and make crap up? I mean seriously, have you ever seen a numbers report that even hints at the 2nd hand market of games being shown as forgone growth? Until they publicly display the actual numbers to prove forgone growth, they are literally no different then the RIAA.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

So what you are saying is they are clueless and make crap up? I mean seriously, have you ever seen a numbers report that even hints at the 2nd hand market of games being shown as forgone growth? Until they publicly display the actual numbers to prove forgone growth, they are literally no different then the IRAA.

Don't shoot the messenger bro. I don't have any evidence either way. But obviously they disagree with you or they wouldn't care to do this and Project Ten Dolla Dolla wouldn't have happened.

 

[Game Guru]

Most are chasing that COD dollar and COD break out hit for their own franchises

COD stands out for the reason, that most purchase it, and never sell it back, which in turn forces those waiting (2nd hand sale users/buyers) to bite the bullet and join the masses and purchase a copy for themselves
So that's why you get record number of purchases right off the bat, and every month there after till the next one drops
It's the scarcity of the used version, that isn't there to be gobbled up, which most publishers don't realize why COD sells they way it does and why and harms all other publishers

COD cannibalizes other franchises by removing the user want to need to purchase new content from others, it satiates them with MP + DLC map packs

Usually it would be you buy publisher/dev A game for $60, then 2-3 months later resell for $30+ and buy publisher/dev B game for $60 (only need $30 extra now), don't like it too short, resell quickly < 1 month $40-$50+, then publisher/dev C game for $60 (now you need only $10-$20 investment) etc.
3 $60 titles, $180 MSRP total, played for $100-$120
COD just breaks that cycle, it comes in and creates a vacuum for the eco-system
It gobbles up so many sales, that other publishers hurt, then the flipping process needed to subsidize 3 publishers/devs is no more
COD alone takes away the $60 for itself, then the Map Packs/Service offered for $15/month or $50 total, so it eats that full $110 that could have gone to 3 pubs/devs

Now pubs/devs see this and try to match that COD formula and so far have failed miserably on every attempt, nothing has dethroned it
Then following in those footsteps have left waves/wakes of such disaster for the community, that going back to look for survivors is moot, keep looking forward, just be ahead of the crashing wave, if we push hard and fast, we will survive, sooner or latter we will get swallowed, hoping they can escape it

And even more damning... The people who want to play a game like COD... are going to buy COD. COD is available on both Sony and MS's systems after all, so there is no reason for someone to try a clone of COD when everyone can buy the real deal. Conversely, the people who don't want to play COD... are not going to play a clone of COD because they are not interested in that sort of gameplay.

Much like Super Mario Bros, Call of Duty has become a Genre King. Much as most people will refuse to buy a typical platform game for a high price unless it's a Mario game from Nintendo, people are beginning to get to the point where they will refuse to buy an FPS unless it's a Call of Duty game from Activision. You don't compete with Mario in its genre by being Mario... You compete with Mario by being everything Mario is not while retaining the core elements of the genre. You beat Mario instead by becoming Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

[unbias]

Don't shoot the messenger bro. I don't have any evidence either way. But obviously they disagree with you or they wouldn't care to do this and Project Ten Dolla Dolla wouldn't have happened.

Judging by their reactions when things dont go well, I would say their "view" is closer to a scapegoat then anything else.

 

[Jac_Solar]

This is good news for a few reasons. The first is that piracy will likely be reduced. If the system phones home every so often to check on your licenses, and there is no way to play a game without that title being authenticated and a license being active, piracy becomes harder. You'll never be able to stop pirates, not entirely, but if you can make the act of pirating games non-trivial the incidence of piracy will drop. This is a good thing for everyone except those who want to play games for free.

So, all those extra measures, passports, activation keys, increased prices, server issues, etc, is a good thing? Why? Because it makes it harder for pirates?

And as I've said before, if you take into account the various factors of pirating, such as; games get increased exposure, word of mouth, pirates/people generally get to try titles they would not have bought otherwise, might get introduced to new genres, game series, game studios, etc. -- several factors that could positively contribute to the general gaming ecosystem/result in sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise -- is the effect really that awful? Like with used games; there's an ecosystem in effect.

The most pirated Xbox 360 title in 2011 was Gears of War 3, at 890,000, with CoD: MW 3 at 830,000. Most pirated title on PC was Crysis 2, at 3,920,000.

All those titles are massive hits, but just the titles on the top; MW 3 grossed 1 billion dollars in 16 days. Gear of War series surpassed 19 million sales total in 2012. And I think pirate numbers are lower nowadays as well. It doesn't seem like consoles need any more security.

So, out of 900,000 pirated copies, how many people would have bought Gears of War 3 if they couldn't pirate it? Keep in mind this was one of the biggest titles on Xbox 360 in terms of hype and such.

I think 300,000 is an extreme, but probably much lower. In general, I don't think they'd get more than 50,000-100,000 sales if they forced pirates to buy titles. That would also mean the title would get significantly less exposure on various internet circles, and so forth, so the overall gain would probably be even less than those 50,000-100,000 titles.

 

[WanderingWind]

ahahahahaha, nice.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Without the used market sucking up all those sales and all that consumer money, it's very possible we'll see Steam-style sales on older or bundled games on the Xbox One.

Yeah, right. The great prices on Games on Demand and PSN are indicative of that. In the end, the consumers are the ones getting screwed. The floodgates are slowly opening and things are going to escalate into insanity from here.

 

[Curufinwe]

I don't remember that far back. I first noticed Penny Arcade when they accused reviewers who dared to give the original Assassin's Creed scores below 8/10 of not playing it properly, which of course had nothing to do with the fact they were paid by Ubisoft to draw a comic for the game.

They've always been hypocritical bullshit artists as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WanderingWind]

I don't remember that far back. I first noticed Penny Arcade when they accused reviewers who dared to give the original Assassin's Creed scores below 8/10 of not playing it properly, which of course had nothing to do with the fact they were paid by Ubisoft to draw a comic for the game.

They've always been hypocritical bullshit artists as far as I'm concerned.

Penny Arcade became famous for basically being the most eloquent defenders of gamers. Their strip was pretty funny at times too. Now, they're lost in a self-fellating hole of overwrought nonsense and industry boot licking. It pretty much started when, yeah, they made a game that bombed hard. I don't blame them for seeing things from a different perspective, but I do blame them for basically doing a 180 and attacking in increasingly condescending tones the base that allows them to do things like their Kickstarter.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Penny Arcade became famous for basically being the most eloquent defenders of gamers. Their strip was pretty funny at times too. Now, they're lost in a self-fellating hole of overwrought nonsense and industry boot licking. It pretty much started when, yeah, they made a game that bombed hard. I don't blame them for seeing things from a different perspective, but I do blame them for basically doing a 180 and attacking in increasingly condescending tones the base that allows them to do things like their Kickstarter.

They became what they hated the most

For all the quips and shots taken by their behalf, they hoped their middling would keep them loved and cherished, now they just conform to the rhetoric of the industry

 

[jay]

They became what they hated the most

Rich?

 

[Dead Man]

But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.

This post. *bow*

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

Yeah, taking the crazy people logic at face value seems a reasonable proposition :/

 

[Pyronite]

What other industry are you basing this off of? Are you saying sales would maintain if the 2nd hand market ceased to exist? To be able to make that claim, you should probably make sure you have some actual numbers to prove forgone growth(you cant do this). All you are doing is the same thing you are accusing others of. You cant back up that sentiment, nobody can, all it is, is noise to excuse crappy money management in this industry.

This is like a religious argument - some around here base their arguments off of the idea that used sales generate more money for developers and gaming in general with no information to back that up. This is why I think that the level of hyperbole around here is just crazy.

The fact that some company can slash $5 off a new game, and even more off an older game, and churn it on through to the tune of a $2 billion+ a year, does not make me comfortable. Developers and publishers have a right to try to minimize that thing - why do you think they are okay with huge Steam sales? A used market can always gouge a "new" (publisher-driven) one, particularly given how much of a poor deal almost every used game credit is.

 

[RazorEdge]

Price drops and Steam-like sales?!

Haha, on what kind of stuff is this guy?!

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Yes!
The Xbone will make Console gaming a Libertarian paradise!

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Link

If so basically they're saying that if you borrow a game from your friend or a family member and try to play it on your profile for free you're a goddam fucking pirate?

 

[Metroidvania]

The fact that some company can slash $5 off a new game, and even more off an older game, and churn it on through to the tune of a $2 billion+ a year, does not make me comfortable. Developers and publishers have a right to try to minimize that thing - why do you think they are okay with huge Steam sales? A used market can always gouge a "new" (publisher-driven) one, particularly given how much of a poor deal almost every used game credit is.

According to conventional wisdom that's been going on for decades, they do not have any sort of 'right' to additional money if a product of theirs is being resold or how much its worth if it's traded in after the first sale.

You're conflating problems with Gamestop's shitty resell policy for used games in general.

 

[marc^o^]

But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.

A+ post.

 

[Burai]

They were equally lame examples couched in emotion. His entire post ignores reality - reality like the CEO behind the Tomb Raider sales predictions resigning due to his performance. Not blaming used games and carrying on.

I could have replaced Tomb Raider with a ton of different examples. I chose it because it was the most recent well-documented example of this. What I can't find is an example of a game that would have sold really well but didn't and been able to equate it to the presence of used games.

Steam has as much control over the PC market as Xbox does over the console. If Sony have better value for money games and better sales, they'll have more users. And Microsoft will have to retaliate. These consoles are competitors like Steam and Origin. It's not just about hardware, it's about platforms.

No they won't need to retaliate because nobody is going to buy another $500 console just to get $10 off of a game for a limited period. I mean, did I miss the point where Microsoft were so threatened by the value of PS+ that they started to offer a similar service? No, they act like it doesn't exist. Because to their users, in their bubble, their ecosystem, it doesn't exist.

I'm not convinced of that logic. But lets go with it; the issue right now is 3 weeks after launch you can buy a second hand version of a game for, what, 70% the price of it new? So for a first hand copy to be an appealing alternative for a customer, it needs to be 70% off too. Doing that only 3 weeks after a game's release isn't healthy, and essentially starves a lot of games of the chance of being long term sellers even when the game is actually continuing to be sold, albeit second hand versions.

People buying second hand versions of games are buying them because they're significantly cheaper than first hand copies. If you create a system where first hand copies can fall in price gradually over time rather than that instant crash that comes after launch, you'll have a healthier long term market. Now, a lot of this is dependent on publishers not being stupid, which I can't promise. There's a chance that some games will just stay $60 forever, digitally and in retail, and there's no way to get them cheaper. But the competition for lower prices should come from other games lowering their prices for first hand copies rather than Gamestop or eBay offering the same game for less.

So based on that logic, why do games like CoD, FIFA, Mario Kart, etc. hold their value for so long when their sales should be equally cannibalised by these awful used games?

I'll tell you why; It's because people keep them and don't trade them in. And why is that? Because they hold onto the players' attention for longer than a few weeks. I don't see how the solution to this problem is to devalue or force people to hold onto games they don't want any more.

Again, this is the backwards logic of the industry. We have a problem, lets solve it with a negative that will ultimately turn consumers off. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me log any more hours online to maintain a thriving community. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me want to fire it up and replay through it. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me throw money at DLC. All you've given me is a coaster to remind me "BE MORE CAREFUL WITH YOUR MONEY NEXT TIME. DON'T BUY SHIT LIKE THIS AGAIN" when the sequel or a similar title comes along.

Sure but they're still in competition. If Microsoft released all new games for $70 and Sony $60, Sony would sell more hardware because their platform is more appealing. Microsoft don't live in a bubble where they can ignore market trends. I think we've seen from both Sony and Microsoft as of late they've been having more sales on digital product exactly because Steam has become so popular and competitive in that area.

That logic is being undermined as we speak. A PS3 with PS+ is a far, far better deal than an Xbox 360 with Live Gold, yet Microsoft are still selling more consoles, month after month, precisely because they are living in a bubble where they can ignore market trends.

How are gamers going to take advantage of those hypothetical $60 PS4 games if they've already bought an Xbox One and realised their huge mistake? Besides the console and accessories, everything they've bought thus far has zero trade in value. If you've bought 10 games at $70 each, that's a $700 investment that you're throwing away, plus the depreciation in the hardware. No-one's going a grand in the hole, plus spending an additional $400 on the replacement console a to save $10 on a game. You'd never make the lost money back on the savings. Even if you kept your Xbox and supplemented it with a PlayStation, you'd still have to buy (at a presumed MSRP of $400) 40 games before you broke even. And both Microsoft and Sony know this too which is precisely why they can and do operate in their little bubbles

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

This is the worst case of Stockholm syndrome I think I have ever seen on GAF.

 

[Pyronite]

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

There's no reason we have to accept their bullshit because they've decided to be idiots.

Do many people here believe publishers are being idiots simply for the sake of being idiots and not because they've determined that it creates a net loss for their company?

Publishers/developers, I can only assume, try not to do things out of spite. There are normally reasons.

I could have replaced Tomb Raider with a ton of different examples. I chose it because it was the most recent well-documented example of this. What I can't find is an example of a game that would have sold really well but didn't and been able to equate it to the presence of used games.

Of what, though? Of a CEO stepping down to a bad projection? No used games were blamed here - but it was held up as an example in your post.

Did your post really make up for $3 billion+ used game sales that actually went to the people who spent their time creating them? I'm not convinced. You focused on CEOs and faceless corporations, along with a few well-picked failures (Bizarre gambling on a new direction was a shocking developer shutdown).

 

[Deleted member 1235]

This is good news for a few reasons. The first is that piracy will likely be reduced. If the system phones home every so often to check on your licenses, and there is no way to play a game without that title being authenticated and a license being active, piracy becomes harder. You'll never be able to stop pirates, not entirely, but if you can make the act of pirating games non-trivial the incidence of piracy will drop. This is a good thing for everyone except those who want to play games for free.

this is worse than having your mouth shit in. If everyone has a policeman living in their house with them, terrorism would also be harder.

I also like their logic that piracy will drop. Because of antivirus, there are less viruses.

New and more creative viruses are never developed.

 

[Metroidvania]

Do many people here believe publishers are being idiots simply for the sake of being idiots and not because they've determined that it creates a net loss for their company?

Publishers/developers, I can only assume, try not to do things out of spite. There are normally reasons.

They do it to make money. Blocking used games sales (or forcing them to rely on MS to do so) will give them a bigger cut.

That being said, their desire to make money and continue on as a company does not somehow give them additional 'rights' to force a potentially monopolistic system in which you don't have ownership of your games to resell or give to a friend.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

this is worse than having your mouth shit in. If everyone has a policeman living in their house with them, terrorism would also be harder.

I also like their logic that piracy will drop. Because of antivirus, there are less viruses.

New and more creative viruses are never developed.

Next thing you know they'll try to crack down on garage sales because those eat into their profits too.

 

[Pyronite]

They do it to make money. Blocking used games sales (or forcing them to rely on MS to do so) will give them a bigger cut.

That being said, their desire to make money and continue on as a company does not somehow give them additional 'rights' to force a potentially monopolistic system in which you don't have ownership of your games to resell or give to a friend.

Right, but if they do it to make money, they obviously disagree with the sometimes-argument that used game sales lead to further new game sales and a healthier gaming economy.

I don't see it as them looking to gain a monopolistic amount of control over your personal property. I see it as them looking to ensure that the people who made it get a return - I think it leads to a more healthy long-term market for cult games (normally quality games) and is justifiable and morally correct to ensure that the people who spent their time learning their skills can continue to perform them - or at least not have a side-market gaining billions of straight profit on their backs. I don't think Microsoft is doing it totally right, but I don't think they're doing it totally wrong, like 90% of people on GAF seem to think.

 

[Shaneus]

Next thing you know they'll try to crack down on garage sales because those eat into their profits too.

Holy shit, I just realised something. If someone buys a console with a stack of games either from a garage sale or a friend or whatever, unless they're using the same account (doubtful) then every one of those games will be useless. EVERY ONE.

EB Games' 7-day return policy will be made a mockery of, too.

 

[Metroidvania]

Right, but if they do it to make money, they obviously disagree with the sometimes-argument that used game sales lead to further new game sales and a healthier gaming economy.

Or they just want more money period, which they currently get none of after the first sale barring someone else buying the game new. You're assuming intent where we have any.

I don't see it as them looking to gain a monopolistic amount of control over your personal property. I see it as them looking to ensure that the people who made it get a return - I think it leads to a more healthy long-term market for cult games (normally quality games) and to ensure that the people who spent the time get their returns, shaky estimation of used market churn be damned. I don't think Microsoft is doing it totally right, but I don't think they're doing it totally wrong, like 90% of people on GAF seem to think.

but they are already getting paid for every copy that is sold new. Why do they suddenly deserve being paid twice (or 1.5x, or whatever) for the same copy?

Why is this any different, than, say, a book?

I understand that the digital medium blurs the line a bit re: ownership, but if the content is on a disc, but if you get that disc used, yet have to repay an additional fee to MS to 'unlock' it, that's gone beyond the blurred lines into MS retaking control of your game that you've paid for or borrowed/been gifted.

 

[Dead Man]

Holy shit, I just realised something. If someone buys a console with a stack of games either from a garage sale or a friend or whatever, unless they're using the same account (doubtful) then every one of those games will be useless. EVERY ONE.

EB Games' 7-day return policy will be made a mockery of, too.

Yeah, it's not just GS that will be fucked. It is everyone that includes resell value in their purchasing decisions.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Right, but if they do it to make money, they obviously disagree with the sometimes-argument that used game sales lead to further new game sales and a healthier gaming economy.

I don't see it as them looking to gain a monopolistic amount of control over your personal property. I see it as them looking to ensure that the people who made it get a return - I think it leads to a more healthy long-term market for cult games (normally quality games) and is justifiable and morally correct to ensure that the people who spent their time learning their skills can continue to perform them - or at least not have a side-market gaining billions of straight profit on their backs. I don't think Microsoft is doing it totally right, but I don't think they're doing it totally wrong, like 90% of people on GAF seem to think.

If you don't think that publishers/some devs love DD because it gives them effectively free reign (they can literally do whatever they want with zero legal consequence) when it comes to control over your purchased goods, you have to be insane.

 

[tafer]

That logic is being undermined as we speak. A PS3 with PS+ is a far, far better deal than an Xbox 360 with Live Gold, yet Microsoft are still selling more consoles, month after month, precisely because they are living in a bubble where they can ignore market trends.

How are gamers going to take advantage of those hypothetical $60 PS4 games if they've already bought an Xbox One and realised their huge mistake? Besides the console and accessories, everything they've bought thus far has zero trade in value. If you've bought 10 games at $70 each, that's a $700 investment that you're throwing away, plus the depreciation in the hardware. No-one's going a grand in the hole, plus spending an additional $400 on the replacement console a to save $10 on a game. You'd never make the lost money back on the savings. Even if you kept your Xbox and supplemented it with a PlayStation, you'd still have to buy (at a presumed MSRP of $400) 40 games before you broke even. And both Microsoft and Sony know this too which is precisely why they can and do operate in their little bubbles

Another excellent point. We have a real world scenario that shows the absurd logic behind the article is completely unreal, at least, in the console world.

 

[Espada]

Every time a traded in video game is purchased, a publisher sees it as a lost sale. You can disagree with them if you want, but by their logic, the damage is substantial.

Publishers are goddamn idiots. They have no right to profits from the second hand market. So rather than fixing their messed up business model they opt destroy consumer rights.

 

[unagisensei]

What are they high?

Competition leads to lower prices, not near monopolistic distribution.

Written by someone who doesn't understand economics.

I love how they think getting rid of used games may actually lead to price drops, lol. Please.

Not that I take any great pleasure in defending microsoft, but I would love to hear your version of economics if you think this doesn't make sense.

Here's how I see it.

Games are a nearly 0 marginal cost product (especially as they move towards digital distribution). In that case, publishers basically want to sell at the point where Price * Quantity=Revenue ~ Profit (once fixed dev costs are covered) is maximized.

Given the information that's come out from steam sales and others, it's pretty clear that the $60 price point isn't optimal (for you econ guys, I'm saying empirical evidence points to the fact that we're in the elastic portion of the demand curve).

The current problem is that publishers feel they have little choice because they only have a few weeks to sell in most retail stores before they're either returned to publishers or dumped in clearance bins, and a large portion of the mid/long tail quantity is getting sucked up by used games. This makes sense for MSFT too because they're just taking a fixed % of each sale. More total game sales revenue for publishers = more total software license fees for MSFT.

Long story short, in a mostly digital, no used games future, I guarantee that some enterprising publisher will try following Steam's lead and lowering prices to see if they can more than make up the difference in quantity and thus increase overall revenue. That is if MSFT will let them, which seems like it'd be in their interest as long as they don't allow a complete race to the bottom in pricing in the vein of iOS.

 

[polyh3dron]

But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.

 

[Pyronite]

Or they just want more money period, which they currently get none of after the first sale barring someone else buying the game new. You're assuming intent where we have any.

More money period isn't a bad thing (god I've changed so much since I was 16). When you're milking your customer, it's bad - when you're trying to compete on a market in which people can choose to neglect your product if you're pricing it incorrectly, it pays to not have a used game market where they typically gouge their customer for trade-in value and can afford to undercut your market price by $5-$15 at any moment, whatever price you set.

If you win that battle against the company that paid $0 to produce the game, you've almost assuredly lost money, and your business model is unhealthy.

but they are already getting paid for every copy that is sold new. Why do they suddenly deserve being paid twice (or 1.5x, or whatever) for the same copy?

Why is this any different, than, say, a book?

I understand that the digital medium blurs the line a bit re: ownership, but if the content is on a disc, but if you get that disc used, yet have to repay an additional fee to MS to 'unlock' it, that's gone beyond the blurred lines into MS retaking control of your game that you've paid for or borrowed/been gifted.

It's not different than a book - or an e-book - or a cd - or an SNES game. It's always been a grey zone to lend any of the above, it was just very possible.

This is an issue for me too, because I have traded in games in the past (Battlefield 3 on the 360 - you were crap, and I'm looking at you) without pause, but I still think it's morally justified for the original creator to receive the profits of their work. "The way it's always been" is the main thing standing against this - we have the technological means to change the way it's always been, and if this experiment fails on the market, it fails.

Not that I take any great pleasure in defending microsoft, but I would love to hear your version of economics if you think this doesn't make sense.

Here's how I see it.

Games are a nearly 0 marginal cost product (especially as they move towards digital distribution). In that case, publishers basically want to sell at the point where Price * Quantity=Revenue ~ Profit (once fixed dev costs are covered) is maximized.

[...]

Very good post, and I hope someone will have a very good response to it.

 

[Sean*O]

A bunch of entitled jackoffs thinking their product deserves special protection from the free market. Wouldn't everyone on Earth love to ensure that whatever they sold could never be resold without their permission and without the money going to them?

Let's imagine for a moment that this insane idea ever gets off the ground. There would be no more innovation and probably no benefit would ever be felt by 99% of the people in the industry. Programmers, designers, writers, musicians, artists, QA testers, etc... they would all get paid the same as ever. Only thing that would change is a few dickheads at the top who have the least knowledge and passion for video games of anyone on their staff would get some extra millions added to their bank accounts.

They dare to claim it's for the benefit of the industry? LOL

This whole idea is never going to fly, people will not buy it. These developers and MS have dug themselves a nice grave by pushing these concepts. All that's left to do is to jump in and bring it to market.

 

[JasonUresti]

Kuchera:"If we take away this stuff that benefits gamers, maybe eventually publishers will start doing it themselves out of the goodness of their hearts."

Yeah, that's how it will work.

 

[OmnipotentO]

I am not Microsoft. I dont give a rats ass if their drm gets rid of piracy.

Their DRM and their blocking of used game sales are a huge inconvenience to me. (And many others, apparently).

Dont give 2 shits about that making microsoft more money.

 

[cluderi]

But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.

If everyone could stop trying to make money for a second and make video games instead that'd be great. It's a crazy idea I know but you might find that people buy the videogames and that in turn gives you money without trying to screw them.

 

[D.Lo]

It needs to be made clear, if all the studio closings and constant lay-offs haven't made this explicit: The current economics of game development and sales are unsustainable. Games cost more to make, piracy is an issue, used-games are pushed over new, and players say the $60 cost is too high. Microsoft's initiatives with the Xbox One may solve many of these issues, even if we grumble about it. These changes ultimately make the industry healthier.

It is NOT used games making the market unsustainable, it's the moneyhatted megabudget blockbuster model, with soaring production costs to be as 'epic' as possible and where a game from 2 months ago is 'old news' and semi-worthless.

NSMB Wii was still $50 five years after release and still selling.

Again, this is the backwards logic of the industry. We have a problem, lets solve it with a negative that will ultimately turn consumers off. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me log any more hours online to maintain a thriving community. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me want to fire it up and replay through it. Forcing me to keep a disc isn't going to make me throw money at DLC. All you've given me is a coaster to remind me "BE MORE CAREFUL WITH YOUR MONEY NEXT TIME. DON'T BUY SHIT LIKE THIS AGAIN" when the sequel or a similar title comes along.

Haha nice. That's how it used to be, before ebay and trades. I bought Street Fighter Alpha on PS1 and semi-hated it (load times, terrible controller to play Street Fighter on, and it was a low content game), and I was depressed because I felt I'd wasted my money (limited budget as a student) and wish I'd bought something else.