Support NeoGAF

[flintstryker]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

It has probably being quoted a million times already but I just have to say this is the best post I have ever seen on Gaf and it sums up my feelings to a T, there is no way I could have put it as eloquently though.

 

[BobTheFork]

God....DAMN

Great post. I practiced reading it aloud and nearly lost my voice.
That post is a big, beautiful golden brick that needs to be whipped anyone who tries to defend that stupid practice.

 

[UrbanRats]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

I've seen this linked in another thread, wanted to quote it myself, perfectly sums up the discussion about Used Games.
Fantastic post.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Game developers and producers have every right to try and combat Game Stop's aggressive tactics in selling used games. J.

You realize in the rumored policy of MS they are specifically fucking everyone EXCEPT gamestop who is selling used games?

You don't get to cry about gamestop while giving them constant pre order DLC/hacing them as your used game "partner".

It's hypocritical disgusting BULLSHIT.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

I come from the future.

This is bullshit, games now cost 99$ standard edition, they never drop price even if they are 5 years old, and most of the games have stopped working because they turned off the servers.

 

[Yagharek]

I come from the future.

This is bullshit, games now cost 99$ standard edition, they never drop price even if they are 5 years old, and most of the games have stopped working because they turned off the servers.

Report to Sales Age immediately.

 

[Bedlam]

You realize in the rumored policy of MS they are specifically fucking everyone EXCEPT gamestop who is selling used games?

You don't get to cry about gamestop while giving them constant pre order DLC/hacing them as your used game "partner".

It's hypocritical disgusting BULLSHIT.

Exactly. And if there is actually an element there that hurts the industry in regards to used game sales it's Gamestop. Not the everyday gamer who lends a game to a friend every now and then. Not those few people who trade games on message boards. It's Gamestop who basically institutionalized used game sales and made it a widespread, huge business. And now MS is about to hand them the monopoly on used game sales, all while claiming a piece of the pie. Fuckers, all of them. If Gamestop didn't exist, we most likely wouldn't hear those complaints from publishers about the "evil, industry-destroying menace" that used games supposedly are.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

If people knew how much game stores PROFIT for each game they sell, people wouldnt hate used game market on stores.

Game stores usually win around 1-5€ FOR EACH GAME they sell (at least on europe). Winning no more than 10€ for each console they sell. Selling used games is the only way some stores survive, if you block that, some stores will have to close, bringing unemployement.

Somehow on my darkest thoughts, I wish they would block, and then cry how sales are lower than what they were before.

Companys look at Steam and want to be like steam, but they forget Steam is now where it is, because it actually listens to the community.

 

[Petrae]

If people knew how much game stores PROFIT for each game they sell, people wouldnt hate used game market on stores.

Game stores usually win around 1-5€ FOR EACH GAME they sell (at least on europe). Winning no more than 10€ for each console they sell. Selling used games is the only way some stores survive, if you block that, some stores will have to close, bringing unemployement.

Somehow on my darkest thoughts, I wish they would block, and then cry how sales are lower than what they were before.

Companys look at Steam and want to be like steam, but they forget Steam is now where it is, because it actually listens to the community.

That's another problem altogether. Poor margins on new software/hardware sales makes it very challenging to maintain a gaming-focused business. Big-box retailers can do it because they can make up the margin with other products. It's much tougher for gaming specialty stores to do the same. They have to rely on accessory sales and other upsell items (extended warranties, memberships) to try and make money if used game sales were to go away.

Honestly, I believe that GameStop's time is up within five years. It's a business model growing long in the tooth and rapid expansion in the last decade is coming back to bite the chain square in the rear end. As digital distribution grows, the amount of used games to sell shrinks, and online purchasing continues to soar, store closures will have to come about. Heck, they should be closing another round of locations soon due to redundancies. The business model can no longer support two and three locations within 5-10 miles of each other. The company's narrow focus, though there's an attempt to widen it, will be its undoing.

In the meantime, smaller, non-chain independent game stores can still survive. Retro-focused consumers won't go away as easily, and building a game-focused environment in stores can help. Stay small, and you can stick around-- go big in this rapidly changing industry, though, and there's no hope. Further, GameStop isn't an industry necessity. Big box retailers can buy/sell/trade (as Target, Best Buy, and Walmart have done) and still service consumers with gaming needs as well as other things. The industry won't collapse when GameStop goes away; it will evolve and move on.

 

[papersleeves]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Quoting for appreciation. Very well said.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Well said faceless.

Kind of sad for PA to become essentially another PR mouthpiece for MS.

 

[PBY]

Well said faceless.

Kind of sad for PA to become essentially another PR mouthpiece for MS.

Cmon man.

 

[Risible]

Amazing post

I read that and thought "OMG ETHER" and then saw your new tag. Never has a tag been more appropriate. I salute you my brother.

 

[Drencrom]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

One of the best damn posts i've read on GAF...

This should be an article

 

[Monocle]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Can't be given enough appreciation, honestly. If you felt a tremor a while back it was just every corporate apologist on the planet falling to their knees.

 

[charlequin]

Publishers don't drop prices on Steam to compete against other distribution channels.

Sure they do. Overall pricing strategy on PC DD storefronts certainly has to be approved to some degree by publishers, but it's driven by the storefronts themselves, who generally concoct the sales events themselves and then ask game rightsholders on an up/down basis whether they'll participate at the proposed rates.

(This is also why, for example, Steam sales in general have become more conservative recently, while Amazon sales have become noticeably more aggressive.)

apparantly Gamestop and etc fill a void in the market.

They do.

For one thing, they service back catalog. All US publishers gave up on the idea of a back catalog some time ago and generally don't keep anything but a very few specific "evergreen" titles in stock and available at stores (mainly due to increased title volume and the destructive churn it brings with it), so (at least until Amazon became so prominent) stores like Gamestop serviced the need people had to buy games from earlier in the generation that they'd missed out on when they were new.

For another, Gamestop drove the existence of bargain-priced games. Previously, absent a few forward-thinking promotions (like Nintendo's first experiment with "Player's Choice") console games were largely sold at consistent prices and could only be bought as relatively infrequent, luxury-type purchases. With the exploding preowned market on disc games starting with PSX, it became much easier to offer a wide range of older titles at prices in the $5-30 range, making them more appealing to cash-strapped families, college students on a budget, etc.

The way Gamestop fills both of these voids is loathsome, but in both cases it's the result of publishers refusing to provide the products to do so themselves.

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

Of course not. There's no economic reason for it to benefit the middle-tier. The key factor here is that no one in the game industry actually wants to be in the middle-tier. Those who can have a AAAA genre-king will happily ride it into the money-soaked sunset (see: Activision and Call of Duty); those who don't will chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to climb up the latter (see: THQ.)

Middle-tier games existed in the past because at lower budget levels, they were a useful (and mildly profitable) hedge on shifting tastes in the marketplace. Now budgets have spiraled to a point where no one can even afford to hedge anymore, and all the industry tactics have moved towards finding new ways to increase revenue per customer.

More like created it.

Gamestop didn't create anything. You're right that used-media industries in every other medium died off; that's because there's not much profit in selling $15 products for $11 used and because the music and movie industries just used more aggressive discounting to wipe out the used industries.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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

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

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

Prices drop on Steam because otherwise how would publishers monetize old content? It's the same reason why catalog titles on Blu-ray tend to be supercheap. A lot of old movies can be had for $5 or $10 on Blu-ray even as new releases still start in the $20-30 range. This has nothing to do with the distribution channel, low prices on catalog titles has been around since the advent of home video. And yes, the secondary market has always existed for home video. One has nothing to do with the other. Low prices on catalog titles has always been around regardless of the presence of the secondary market for pre-owned VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray movies. A few decades back, Hollywood fought against the secondary market the same way game publishers are trying to fight it now. They didn't get anywhere with Congress and the courts. They realized that fighting their own consumers was pointless, and in the end home video has become a massive profit driver for the film industry. People pass their movies around to their friends and people discover new content they enjoy and go see and buy more movies. It's a beneficial network effect, and these days Hollywood turns a blind eye to the secondary market. It's not their business, nor should it be. Hollywood's business is making movies people want to pay for and see, period.

 

[Jake Tower]

For one thing, they service back catalog. All US publishers gave up on the idea of a back catalog some time ago and generally don't keep anything but a very few specific "evergreen" titles in stock and available at stores (mainly due to increased title volume and the destructive churn it brings with it), so (at least until Amazon became so prominent) stores like Gamestop serviced the need people had to buy games from earlier in the generation that they'd missed out on when they were new.

Anecdote: as a late comer to this generation, I finally had the financial resources to buy an Xbox 360 in 2009. During that year, I was able to buy several "old" games cheaply at GameStop used that were completely out of stock at normal retail regardless of price, games that had not yet been republished under Platinum Hits like BioShock, Mass Effect, and Crackdown. This serviced me by fitting into my budget and allowing me exposure to some of the early (at that time) exclusives of the platform, winning me as a Xbox 360 "loyalist" (in so far as I was satisfied with my console choice)

 

[NullPointer]

Anecdote: as a late comer to this generation, I finally had the financial resources to buy an Xbox 360 in 2009. During that year, I was able to buy several "old" games cheaply at GameStop used that were completely out of stock at normal retail regardless of price, games that had not yet been republished under Platinum Hits like BioShock, Mass Effect, and Crackdown. This serviced me by fitting into my budget and allowing me exposure to some of the early (at that time) exclusives of the platform, winning me as a Xbox 360 "loyalist" (in so far as I was satisfied with my console choice)

Shameful, you didn't even pre-order those games.

After we take care of used games and piracy, we're coming after you late to the party types. We might still have some dev studios to this day if people pre-ordered instead of waiting until months or years after the studios are shut down to pick up a copy on the cheap.

 

[Karsticles]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Goddamn. Bookmarked for ease of reference.

 

[TheHater]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Well said.

 

[Dunk#7]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

I saved this to the notes app on my phone for easy reference. It is too bad we can't throw this around on twitter. Would be nice to include in the current trends.

 

[DC1]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

I read your post.. and then I paused for the cause.
Much love for 'spacial' articulation!

Really, good job.

 

[paskowitz]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

This is by far one of the best posts I have read on GAF.

Edit: 5 quotes in a row!

 

[lowrider007]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

 

[MechaX]

I tried to ask this question in another topic:

What makes the video game industry so unique that they should be able to profit off of the second market (or cannot function with the second market), despite how almost every market across the world will not, cannot, or does not need to?

I'm glad I stumbled back into this topic because faceless' post is definitely one end of the argument, one that was definitely articulated in the other thread (that the industry does not merit unique treatment, nor is their hardship atypical of other similar consumer markets).

With that said, that comparison between a game and an amusement park ticket a couple pages back was one of the most... strange metaphors I have seen in awhile. Is there more accurate depiction on why publishers/developers should get a cut at the second-hand market, if not nullify it completely?

 

[leadbelly]

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 piracy reduction, although not elimination, will likely be a solid byproduct of this system.

This doesn't really make sense. If the game needs the cloud in some way then some problems are going to arise if you're using a pirated copy. If a method is found to bypass the authentication system however, then it doesn't matter how trivial or non-trivial it is. He doesn't really understand that a console needs to be modded in order for it to play pirated games. It is never a trivial matter to begin with. It needs someone who knows how to mod.

If a method is found then the DRM becomes redundant to a certain extent. That's why I will be supporting it all the way.

 

[XaosWolf]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

No amount of gifs in the world can cover this one. Outstanding.

 

[vpance]

I tried to ask this question in another topic:



I'm glad I stumbled back into this topic because faceless' post is definitely one end of the argument, one that was definitely articulated in the other thread (that the industry does not merit unique treatment, nor is their hardship atypical of other similar consumer markets).

With that said, that comparison between a game and an amusement park ticket a couple pages back was one of the most... strange metaphors I have seen in awhile. Is there more accurate depiction on why publishers/developers should get a cut at the second-hand market, if not nullify it completely?

It's only in the works because a place like Gamestop exists. Where people go to buy new games but at the same time are coerced to buy used copies for $5 cheaper. By far it's the most convenient way to trade entertainment goods for the average joe. It's only equivalent was the music store, but obviously it's much cheaper to produce songs, and people don't usually feel compelled to quickly trade in their albums after they listened to it a few times, thus not creating a huge supply of used albums sitting right next to the new ones.

They should just get a cut, plain and simple. It's the least headache on the parties most connected to the industry.

 

[J_Lee]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Faceless needs some type of award for this

 

[SiteSeer]

ever since the early ps3 days i've had the displeasure of reading ben kuchera. his writing is dull, his words lacks any sense of charm or personality. he bents over backwards to defend microsoft at every opportunity, but slams sony for the most minor grievance. his writing is the only thing on the 'net that i literally hate. i'm cool with everything else, but fuck this guy.

 

[Revan]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

There has been a lot of really good posts on GAF lately, but this is by FAR the best I've ever read.

Out-fucking-standing.

 

[zerokoolpsx]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

My mind is blown by this post. Best post I read so far.

 

[graboids]

someone may have already made this point, but if used games go away, and every dollar I spend on a game is just gone, with no way to get any of it back... suddenly game reviews become WAY more valuable to me as reference when deciding to "risk" $60 on a game. Based on that I am less shocked when I see game journalists/reviewers defending a system that might make them (more?) relevant again. Maybe I am just crazy... or tired.

 

[Revan]

someone may have already made this point, but if used games go away, and every dollar I spend on a game is just gone, with no way to get any of it back... suddenly game reviews become WAY more valuable to me as reference when deciding to "risk" $60 on a game. Based on that I am less shocked when I see game journalists/reviewers defending a system that might make them (more?) relevant again. Maybe I am just crazy... or tired.

You are making a lot of sense. DoritosGate was a pretty big eye opener for me when it comes to "journalistic" integrity in this medium.

In a pre-DRM world I would use reviews for games that I was on the fence about, or the latest AAA titles that I knew I couldn't play Day 1....I'd watch the reviews to see the gameplay, then read the review and if the hyperbole wasn't bad I'd actually take what the reviewer was saying into consideration when it came to my purchase.

Post-DRM world however....I don't know if I'd trust any reviews from any of the big gaming sites mostly because of what you said. I'd stick to gamers only reviews, and probably strictly what GAF says (and maybe a couple of subreddits I trust on Reddit).

Gaming sites as it stands are waaaaaay to skewed by publishers that I find them hard to trust today. I suspect in a post-drm world that skew would become much much worse.

 

[komicturtle]

Personally, I never buy used games. The only two games I got used were DQVIII and FFXII (the latter came with a neat collectors tin), and that was because I couldn't get them new. I see value in used games for titles out of print and no longer on sale. On the flip side, there's always digital, but after recently downloading ACIII that was 17GB and as games get bigger, digital for those console retail games are a bit unattractive ATM.
Limiting rights to consumers is never a good thing.

 

[charlequin]

Faceless needs some type of award for this

The sweet new tag and overflowing list of quotes in his User CP from making probably the most QFTed post in GAF's history aren't good enough?

 

[Shaneus]

I come from the future.

This is bullshit, games now cost 99$ standard edition, they never drop price even if they are 5 years old, and most of the games have stopped working because they turned off the servers.

But hey, at least those developers are still in business!


All three of them.

 

[harSon]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

I'm going to have to disagree. Just as aspects of the constitution, for example the 2nd Amendment, become dated as societies naturally evolve, so to do the working definitions of stuff like "consumer rights." Your working definition of "consumer rights" is dated, and not inclusive of the technological advancements that have occurred over the course of the last decade or two. In the past, consumers have been granted free reign (under an unspoken rule set in many cases) regarding the tangible objects they have purchased, and one of those rights being the ability to resell it if desired. This has been the case since consumerism became an inherent part of society centuries ago. But similar to how the constitution is amended as society has evolved, so have consumer rights as technology has thrown us curve balls. An example of this came with the creation of the VCR recorder, and DVD/Blu-Ray recorder thereafter. Now consumers had the ability to copy and give away or sell their products, and due to this technological advancement not existing in past years, laws had to be put in place to "protect the industries" that it potentially effected. We are in the middle of a transition away from the retail age towards the digital age with respect to the mediums that have to do with media, and it's ludicrous to suggest that the rules established for the former is scalable within the latter.

The direction of industry has always been a tug of war between businesses and consumers, and in some cases the judicial system when this tug of war is incapable of unfolding naturally. Businesses put out a product, and consumers ultimately decide whether its worthy of being purchased. The current state of the industry is a result of this tug of war, and to state that it lies solely on the industry's shoulders alone is preposterous. I'm not saying that the industry is without blame, because they undoubtedly are. You're 100% correct when you say that consumers are the "real masters." At the end of the day, consumers were the ones who purchased AAA titles in such large amounts that it suggested that this development model was not merely a lucrative alternative, but clear cut consumer preference. Their shopping habits also turned Gamestop into an industry juggernaut.

And there is nothing legally repugnant about Publishers or Console Manufacturers attempting to restrict the sales of used products. Pretty much every media related industry has attempted to do so in the digital age. The movie industry has made a major push for VOD, Netflix/Amazon Prime like services, etc. The music industry has been completely consumed by the digital age, and services like iTunes are juggernauts within the industry. Books, comics and magazines are making the shift alongside the popularity of E-Ink and Tablet devices. Text books often come with necessary online components that severely effect their resell value. Hell, the PC side of gaming did away with used games years ago. And in all cases, consumers were free to pursue alternatives, or stick with traditional instances of these products, but they ultimately chose to embrace the changes. Microsoft and publishers have the right to release a product that is restrictive of Used Games, and/or Always Online. And consumers obviously have the right not to purchase these products. As I said, it's a tug of war process between business and consumer. If the industry is truly off-base, and are releasing a product that consumers ultimately do not want, then they will fail. If you disagree with the direction that Microsoft is attempting to take the industry in, continue to be outspoken and vote with your wallets considering that there are alternatives. Regardless of the conclusion, the direction of the industry will have been dictated by the consumer.

And just a side comment. Everyone who claims they're skipping the Xbox One, and is going to be making a transition to PC gaming, is sort of a hypocrite (Unless Always-Online, and not Used Games is the underlying reason). PC gaming and the overwhelming success of Steam is one of the biggest reasons that Microsoft and Publishers consider the current path a potentially lucrative one.

 

[Open Source]

The sweet new tag and overflowing list of quotes in his User CP from making probably the most QFTed post in GAF's history aren't good enough?

It's actually quite a silly, inane screed that shows complete ignorance about why the industry actually makes that "military porn" and how good or bad it is for them. It just tells people what they want to hear in emotional, rabble-rousing language and style. And those who are too ineloquent or dim-witted to articulate the same sentiment, and instead can come up with nothing better than absurd analogies to used cars, admire it. It absolves their greed and their blame in creating the current situation. It's the publishers' fault!

And to some degree, it is, but it is an inevitable result of simply giving the largest group of customers possible what they want. They want "military porn." And sports games. Look at the Top 10 games for every month this generation. Sports games and killing games, punctuated by the occasional Nintendo or music game. Publishers made all sorts of games. And those are the ones that people bought. In disproportionately huge numbers. And the bigger the development and marketing budgets, the bigger the sales, with a few exceptions. You want to know why those games are made with the budgets they are made with? It's because that's what customers reward them for doing. It's not that hard to understand, but maybe it is a little hard to accept.

It's exactly like the people who rant about auto makers failing because they focused too much on producing SUVs. Those greedy executives! Those horrible gas guzzlers! If only they made more hybrids and plug-ins and EVs! Of course, we know that the profits from the SUVs were keeping those automakers afloat in the first place, and that those more efficient cars came nowhere near their profit margins, despite heavy subsidies, because it turns out that more people were willing to pay the premiums for the SUVs.

It's the same with the AAA dudebro shooter. I hate them. I don't buy them. I don't think they're good for the industry. But in business it's survival of the fittest, and because of a confluence of factors - the current retail model, used games, customer preferences, etc. - they are the survivors.

 

[Freshmaker]

If people knew how much game stores PROFIT for each game they sell, people wouldnt hate used game market on stores.

Game stores usually win around 1-5€ FOR EACH GAME they sell (at least on europe). Winning no more than 10€ for each console they sell. Selling used games is the only way some stores survive, if you block that, some stores will have to close, bringing unemployement.

Somehow on my darkest thoughts, I wish they would block, and then cry how sales are lower than what they were before.

Companys look at Steam and want to be like steam, but they forget Steam is now where it is, because it actually listens to the community.

IT's evem more amazing when you figure that they're directly attacking one of their biggest direct customers when they go after retailers like Game Stop. Cut those retail profits by whatever and that's less games and systems those retailers can buy to sell new in the first place.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

We are in the middle of a transition away from the retail age towards the digital age with respect to mediums having to do with media, and it's ludicrous to suggest that the rules established for the former is scalable within the latter.

Digital and physical have coexisted on consoles for years without any problems. It's foolish to think that it suddenly needs to be swung one way or the other.

At the end of the day, consumers were the ones who purchased AAA titles in such large amounts that it suggested that this development model was not merely a lucrative alternative, but clear cut consumer preference.

Which came first, the consumers buying the AAA exclusively, or the publishers swapping over to exclusively chasing AAA dollars? Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

And in all cases, consumers were free to pursue alternatives, or stick with traditional instances of these products, but they ultimately chose to embrace these changes.

The problem with this is that you're taking each market and flipping it as a binary "yes" or "no" when it comes to "embracing the changes." It's not as clear cut as that. VOD, ebook readers, iTunes, these all have specific advantages to the consumer and happily co-exist with their physical counterparts as a supplement. Microsoft's vision of the future grants none of the benefits and sloppily overwrites what's there.

Regardless of the conclusion, the direction of the industry will have been dictated by the consumer.

The consumer wasn't asking for the industry to perform self cannibalism and then suddenly start sawing off the consumer's leg to replace its own.

And just a side comment. Everyone who claims they're skipping the Xbox One, and is going to be making a transition to PC gaming, is a hypocrite (Unless Always-Online, and not Used Games is the underlying reason). PC gaming and the overwhelming success of Steam is the reason that Microsoft and Publishers consider the current path a potentially lucrative one.

The DD situation on PC are a fundamentally different situation for a wide variety of reasons already established in this thread, which can be boiled down to a healthy ecosystem of competition, DRM-free alternatives, and insanely low prices. Microsoft missed the important pieces.

 

[harSon]

Digital and physical have coexisted on consoles for years without any problems. It's foolish to think that it suddenly needs to be swung one way or the other.

The same is true for every other industry that has undergone the transition. I agree that Microsoft would be better served to let the transition undergo a natural shift, and create a console representative of that shift thereafter, but they're in their right to try and force this inevitable shift. We're in our right to refuse it.

Which came first, the consumers buying the AAA exclusively, or the publishers swapping over to exclusively chasing AAA dollars? Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to entail? The industry didn't always primarily concern itself with AAA development, but once it became clear that consumers primarily purchased games of that stature, the industry slowly transitioned until it embodied that preference.

The problem with this is that you're taking each market and flipping it as a binary "yes" or "no" when it comes to "embracing the changes." It's not as clear cut as that. VOD, ebook readers, iTunes, these all have specific advantages to the consumer. Microsoft's vision of the future grants none of that.

A healthy middle ground between retail and digital is definitely preferable, but that's not the "vision" of the movie, music and print industries, simply a middle ground between the transition away from retail at this point in time. This transition away from detail comes with its benefits and negatives, and Microsoft's vision is no different.

The DD situation on PC are a fundamentally different situation for a wide variety of reasons already established in this thread, which can be boiled down to a healthy ecosystem of competition, DRM-free alternatives, and insanely low prices. Microsoft missed the important pieces.

I agree that the DD situation on PC is fundamentally different, but that's due to its obligation to regain lost consumers. The attributes you've mentioned weren't always a reality within PC gaming. It was a result of the tug of war process between businesses and consumers I described before.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to entail? The industry didn't always primarily concern itself with AAA development, but once it became clear that consumers primarily purchased games of that stature, the industry slowly transitioned until it embodied that preference.

If this is what the business side of things believes, consumers and publishers are truly talking right past each other.

A healthy middle ground between retail and digital is definitely preferable, but that's not the "vision" of the movie, music and print industries, simply a middle ground between the transition away from retail at this point in time. This transition away from detail comes with its benefits and negatives, and Microsoft's vision is no different

It would help to know the benefits.

 

[Bad_Boy]

If games were the same price as blu-ray releases, I wouldn't give a fuck about this used game business. But they'll never be.

 

[hooijdonk17]

And just a side comment. Everyone who claims they're skipping the Xbox One, and is going to be making a transition to PC gaming, is sort of a hypocrite (Unless Always-Online, and not Used Games is the underlying reason). PC gaming and the overwhelming success of Steam is one of the biggest reasons that Microsoft and Publishers consider the current path a potentially lucrative one.

No they are not hypocrites. You are a demagogue though. Your whole post is eye gouging demagoguery, and I am truly dumber for having read it, but this one last paragraph simply steals the show.

Steam is not PC Gaming. People are not considering switching from Xbone to Steam. When you criticise an aspect of Steam, you are not criticising PC Gaming. And even if you compare Steam to Xbone, it's an invalid comparison on a million levels.

Every corporate monkey who has posted so far in this thread attempted this logic: People are defending idea A; concept B is related to iea A; Let's attack concept B and pretend we have succesfully dealt with idea A.

Can this bullshit please end?

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

The same is true for every other industry that has undergone the transition. I agree that Microsoft would be better served to let the transition undergo a natural shift, and create a console representative of that shift thereafter, but they're in their right to try and force this inevitable shift. We're in our right to refuse it.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that Microsoft doesn't have the right to make the Xbox One a terrible product. I'm not even sure what the point of saying so is.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to entail? The industry didn't always primarily concern itself with AAA development, but once it became clear that consumers primarily purchased games of that stature, the industry slowly transitioned until it embodied that preference.

I don't agree that consumers ever stopped buying mid-tier games. They simply stopped making them. I think that publishers started to push their budgets further to chase after the COD and Gears AAA space (those two sold a lot in 2006 and 2007), which got incredibly crowded and then now we're in this position where the budgets keep rising but the sales aren't there to save it.

Publishers stopped wanting to chase after the mid-tier because the reward wasn't high enough, but the risk was also great and a lot of publishers and developers paid the price.

A healthy middle ground between retail and digital is definitely preferable, but that's not the "vision" of the movie, music and print industries, simply a middle ground between the transition away from retail at this point in time.

This is flat out wrong; none of those industries have aggressively tried to push consumers away from physical media. Why would that benefit those industries at all? Especially when you can use the advantages of each option to convince people to buy something multiple times (for example, watched it on stream so now I'll go buy it on Blu-Ray for better quality).

This transition away from detail comes with its benefits and negatives, and Microsoft's vision is no different.

Microsoft's vision has no positives for the consumer, only negatives.

I agree that the DD situation on PC is fundamentally different, but that's due to its obligation to regain lost consumers. The attributes you've mentioned weren't always a reality within PC gaming. It was a result of the tug of war process between businesses and consumers I described before.

No. There were always DRM-free alternatives, and there was always competition between different digital stores. Only the deep sales were put in place to create PC gaming growth. So your accusation of hypocrisy is misplaced.

 

[Open Source]

Sure they do. Overall pricing strategy on PC DD storefronts certainly has to be approved to some degree by publishers, but it's driven by the storefronts themselves, who generally concoct the sales events themselves and then ask game rightsholders on an up/down basis whether they'll participate at the proposed rates.

(This is also why, for example, Steam sales in general have become more conservative recently, while Amazon sales have become noticeably more aggressive.)

For another, Gamestop drove the existence of bargain-priced games. Previously, absent a few forward-thinking promotions (like Nintendo's first experiment with "Player's Choice") console games were largely sold at consistent prices and could only be bought as relatively infrequent, luxury-type purchases. With the exploding preowned market on disc games starting with PSX, it became much easier to offer a wide range of older titles at prices in the $5-30 range, making them more appealing to cash-strapped families, college students on a budget, etc.

The way Gamestop fills both of these voids is loathsome, but in both cases it's the result of publishers refusing to provide the products to do so themselves.



Of course not. There's no economic reason for it to benefit the middle-tier. The key factor here is that no one in the game industry actually wants to be in the middle-tier. Those who can have a AAAA genre-king will happily ride it into the money-soaked sunset (see: Activision and Call of Duty); those who don't will chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to climb up the latter (see: THQ.)

Middle-tier games existed in the past because at lower budget levels, they were a useful (and mildly profitable) hedge on shifting tastes in the marketplace. Now budgets have spiraled to a point where no one can even afford to hedge anymore, and all the industry tactics have moved towards finding new ways to increase revenue per customer.

No, publishers do not drop their prices on Amazon DD to compete with Steam DD. They do not care where their game is sold, only that it is sold, and so they do not drop prices to push one platform over another (Valve-Steam, EA-Origin, etc. being obvious exceptions). They do it to cast a wider net for price-sensitive customers. On XB1, there is no wider area if all DD is done in 1 marketplace, and so the variety of distribution channels on PC has no effect on the price-drop incentives that publishers would have. Amazon themselves will aggressively recruit publishers to have sales to compete with Steam, but it does not result in a significantly larger number of discounted titles. It just alters their timing a bit, actually slowing down the frequency of sales on other channels as publishers try to manage the total time their game is on discount.

I am not sure if GameStop did or did not drive bargain prices - from what I remember during that time, Sony was very lenient in what they allowed to be published, resulting in a flood of cheap shovelware on the market. I don't remember used games being a significant factor during that time, mostly because it wasn't set up to be the super-optimized, computerized behemoth of a cash cow that it is today. But I think you are right generally - publishers did not drop prices significantly (platinum hits, etc.) before used games became so popular. However, I think this reluctance was more due to retail obligations than anything else, and that if used games vanished, and the industry moved away from retail to the point where they could control prices without retail getting pissed at them, those discounts would continue and even grow, as publishers now know how effective a program of deep discounts can be in maximizing revenue.

Used games reduce new sales of all tiers of games about equally in terms of percentages. Mid-tier games were often fairly marginal in terms of profit potential anyway, and used games took them that short distance down below the line where they were worth making. With these massive AAA games, they were spectacularly profitable, and used games just made them less spectacular. So things shifted to AAA, which hurt mid-tier even further because of the increased disparity in appeal and mindshare between them and the AAA titles. Mid-tier games were not just a "hedge" - in some cases, those are the only kinds of games that certain publishers made. Those publishers are now gone, almost gone, or shoveling their money primarily into AAA games.

 

[syllogism]

First-sale doctrine has never been about the rights of the consumer in the classical sense, but striking an optimal balance between the interests of the society/market as whole and the copyright holders. It is not a principle that only applies in a business-consumer relationship. The term consumer rights is the same thing as consumer protection, which refers to the elimination of the issues arising from the bargaining power disparity between the parties. First-sale doctrine does not directly protect the consumer, but is rather just another limitation of the copyright regime just like term length or fair use exceptions.

Of course in the context of this discussion using the term is completely fine, but I believe it's important to distinguish repugnant behavior (e.g. contractual terms which take away true fundamental consumer protections such as the right to file a lawsuit, return the product if it's faulty or unsafe etc.) and something that relates to the value offered to the consumer. This is not to say there is anything wrong with demanding for more value as that is what being a consumer is all about.

 

[dreamcastmaster]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

My word, that is well said.