Support NeoGAF

[artful_dodger]

Solution: make better games.

PS: companies making money is their OWN concern. Not mine. Individual rights should always be greater than any company/government/organization.

Tim Schafer would probably disagree. You can make a great game but if your publisher doesn't have the faith to throw marketing money at it, you aren't going to make shit off of it.

Also, yes, I agree your game is your game. But that also doesn't mean that the people who run the show can't force you to play on their terms. Look at world of warcraft, I'd love to give my copy of WoW away but too bad it's linked to my original account info and is not transferrable. And I'd also love to share my iTunes music library with all of my friends, but welp, can't do that either.

PC games have been dealing with these issues for years now and have had to take measures to support and protect their businesses. Console systems now have a hybrid of both piracy and the second hand market to deal with, so naturally you are going to see them take action against it. Understand that if you want better games, these companies need to stay in business. If you don't care about the games, and you're more concerned with your civil liberties being stripped from you, well...I salute you as a patriot and would say don't buy a playstation, ipod, or play any mmorpgs.

 

[datruth29]

But in your game, the consumer gets screwed out of $50. In the event that a game cost $29.99 but the owner of the game can't sell it...they lose <$30. So the total is still <$60.

I'm not suggesting this is realistic. But the idea in a perfect world is RE: used games/rental markets dying and developers/publishers selling 3-5x as many copies as they do now...is that games could be cheaper.

I know what you were getting at. The problem is that when a company sees an opportunity to make as much money as possible, they will always go for that opportunity. Meaning, if they can sell a game for $60, added with microtransactions and a "used game" system like this, the would have no reason what so ever to drop the price. The only time they would drop the price is if it provided them higher financial incentive. In the end, they would release it for $60 and drop the price when its not selling as well anymore. The same way they do it today.

 

[meltpotato]

Tim Schafer would probably disagree.

i think everyone here would really like to believe the fantasy land you are talking about, but in reality Tim Schafer is the exception (and an awesome one at that) not the rule.

 

[ManaByte]

i think everyone here would really like to believe the fantasy land you are talking about, but in reality Tim Schafer is the exception (and an awesome one at that) not the rule.

Beyond Good & Evil? Ico?

 

[Pimpwerx]

Bullshit idea if true. As many have stated, what I do with the product once I've purchased it shouldn't be to Sony to decide. I feel that now you're no longer buying the game, but the license. That license is in your name, and no one else's. Transfer fee applies to that. This will no doubt make it easy for them to start their distribution system. It really just sound like stealth-DRM. Tying it to marketplace points is just a simple distraction. PEACE.

 

[artful_dodger]

i think everyone here would really like to believe the fantasy land you are talking about, but in reality Tim Schafer is the exception (and an awesome one at that) not the rule.

Care to back up your statement with an explanation or just keep on with the baseless conjecture?

 

[EviLore]

So what it if worked like this specifically:

There's a $10 activation fee when someone buys a new game from you. They hand you cash for what the game is worth minus the $10 that they're going to have to pay, and they pay $10 to sony when they activate it. For that $10, you the original owner get $10 in sony points sent back to you as compensation for the decrease in resale value. That's worth $10 to you, but doesn't cost sony $10 effectively. The margin within that $10 goes to sony for their online service et al, and back to the publisher.

If there are concessions made for when you have multiple PS3s in your home, or when you want to loan it to a friend, or if your PS3 breaks, then well..........it wouldn't be too horrible, would it?

 

[ManaByte]

Ok question for everyone who read the entire article:

If (and I mean if) such a system is in the PS3, and even if they don't come out an announce it before launch, will you buy a PS3?

 

[Wollan]

From a business stand point this makes too much sense it's frightening.
And with them already having hints for this in powerpoint presentations... I guess we need to watch that tgs speech closely.

 

[Razoric]

Ok question for everyone who read the entire article:

If (and I mean if) such a system is in the PS3, and even if they don't come out an announce it before launch, will you buy a PS3?

yes

 

[davepoobond]

So what it if worked like this specifically:

There's a $10 activation fee when someone buys a new game from you. They hand you cash for what the game is worth minus the $10 that they're going to have to pay, and they pay $10 to sony when they activate it. For that $10, you the original owner get $10 in sony points sent back to you as compensation for the decrease in resale value. That's worth $10 to you, but doesn't cost sony $10 effectively. The margin within that $10 goes to sony for their online service et al, and back to the publisher.

If there are concessions made for when you have multiple PS3s in your home, or when you want to loan it to a friend, or if your PS3 breaks, then well..........it wouldn't be too horrible, would it?

if the full "activation" fee just went to the previous owner, someone could have two ps3s and just keep switching games between the two to get as many points as they can...i dont think that'd be smart on sony's end. they'd lose a lot of money.

 

[meltpotato]

Care to back up your statement with an explanation or just keep on with the baseless conjecture?

have oyu heard of EA? remember a game called ET? Do you see how many licensed shovelware pieces of shit are produced each year? this IS the industry. i mean go to gamestop and look at the selection. seriously, exception not the rule is the exact phrase for what oyu are hoping for.

 

[ManaByte]

have oyu heard of EA? remember a game called ET? Do you see how many licensed shovelware pieces of shit are produced each year? this IS the industry. i mean go to gamestop and look at the selection. seriously, exception not the rule is the exact phrase for what oyu are hoping for.

::snickers::

That shovelware shit are "sure bets". Which is the problem he was talking about. It will only get worse without a major change to how publishers get money.

 

[Bebpo]

Ok question for everyone who read the entire article:

If (and I mean if) such a system is in the PS3, and even if they don't come out an announce it before launch, will you buy a PS3?

Sure.

It sucks, but so do a lot of other things about the PS3...and lots of stuff about the X360...and lots of stuff about the Wii. Yet if you want to play the games on the system, you suck it up and you say "man, this pisses me off!" and then you put down the money. The future of gaming is more and more bad stuff ****ing over the consumer, but whatcha gonna do?

 

[artful_dodger]

I feel that now you're no longer buying the game, but the license.

Yeah, but have you ever been buying the game and not the license? Why should games be treated differently than TV, Music, Movies, etc?

EDIT: For example, you know those little TV disclaimers where they say "This broadcast is intended for the sole use of our audience, reproduction, redistribution, etc. without consent of XYZ Pictures is forbidden by law...". That's the same thing that Sony is trying to incorporate to protect their businesses and protect the developers who make games for their platform.

I could also see them incorporating this into Blu-Ray standalone players to ensure movies, etc. are not re-sold and redistributed outside of the terms of use. Come to think of it, this will probably do wonders for attracting more game developers and movie studios to this platform as well.

 

[IceIpor]

So what it if worked like this specifically:

There's a $10 activation fee when someone buys a new game from you. They hand you cash for what the game is worth minus the $10 that they're going to have to pay, and they pay $10 to sony when they activate it. For that $10, you the original owner get $10 in sony points sent back to you as compensation for the decrease in resale value. That's worth $10 to you, but doesn't cost sony $10 effectively. The margin within that $10 goes to sony for their online service et al, and back to the publisher.

If there are concessions made for when you have multiple PS3s in your home, or when you want to loan it to a friend, or if your PS3 breaks, then well..........it wouldn't be too horrible, would it?

I don't think that is going to happen... (If it did, it's still bad though)
What you are talking about is selling a used game to another person at an agreed price.
There is no guarantee that the seller will want to sell the game for the price they want - $10.
Or even worse, what happens if the game becomes rare? The seller will probably still want to (and be able to) inflate the price as usual.

All you've given is a way for Sony to make money continually at the expense of consumers.

Fake Edit: But wait, are you talking about new games? If you're talking about unused games, how would that be better for retailers and consumers versus the way it is now?

 

[meltpotato]

::snickers::

That shovelware shit are "sure bets". Which is the problem he was talking about. It will only get worse without a major change to how publishers get money.

and like i said, its naive to think that sure bets would go away due to them having an additional revenue stream.

 

[EviLore]

if the full "activation" fee just went to the previous owner, someone could have two ps3s and just keep switching games between the two to get as many points as they can...i dont think that'd be smart on sony's end. they'd lose a lot of money.

Erm, in this scenario the fee isn't going back to the previous owner though. The fee is going to sony, and sony is giving you something in return that has a presumably equivalent value to you but doesn't cost them the full amount. You wouldn't be making any money if you were selling to yourself, as you'd just be converting your own money into points for no apparent reason.

 

[Zaptruder]

if the full "activation" fee just went to the previous owner, someone could have two ps3s and just keep switching games between the two to get as many points as they can...i dont think that'd be smart on sony's end. they'd lose a lot of money.

Unless you know... they only allowed that bonus to happen once per account.

Plus, person B has to pay Sony real money so that person A can get sony dollars.

 

[DopeyFish]

::snickers::

That shovelware shit are "sure bets". Which is the problem he was talking about. It will only get worse without a major change to how publishers get money.

people keep the games they love and rid themselves of the ones they don't. This system sure won't help the shovelware situation - in fact ... it will probably make it worse

 

[davepoobond]

Erm, in this scenario the fee isn't going back to the previous owner though. The fee is going to sony, and sony is giving you something in return that has a presumably equivalent value to you but doesn't cost them the full amount. You wouldn't be making any money if you were selling to yourself, as you'd just be converting your own money into points for no apparent reason.

sorry, guess i misread it =E

 

[EviLore]

I don't think that is going to happen... (If it did, it's still bad though)
What you are talking about is selling a used game to another person at an agreed price.
There is no guarantee that the seller will want to sell the game for the price they want - $10.
Or even worse, what happens if the game becomes rare? The seller will probably still want to (and be able to) inflate the price as usual.

All you've given is a way for Sony to make money continually at the expense of consumers.

Well of course there's no guarantee that the -$10 would be exactly taken into account; it would just be a known element in the resale market and you'd assume that the prices would reflect it. It'd be a seller's market for sure, yeah.

I'm not saying it would be a good or desirable thing for consumers, just perhaps a less evil scenario than some others we're discussing.

 

[Vyer]

I don't really see how it would be a good thing for our favorite industry to completely cripple the used and rental markets. Not too mention structuring something as simple as using the disc itself to online connections and transactions.

That seems like a bad, bad idea.

 

[IJoel]

I can see this happening for PS3's online enabled games. Free online gaming, with the caveat that you buy a non-transferrable license, by means of a game code tied to your gamertag. Offline content would remain as always though.

 

[datruth29]

Yeah, but have you ever been buying the game and not the license? Why should games be treated differently than TV, Music, Movies, etc?

Well, the point is that its not. Thats why the most we could do is bitch and use are money where we want to. I realize that and I'm probably going to accept it some time in the future in a very bitter way.

Just to note, one thing we have to consider is how retailers would react to this. If they are no longer getting the revenue from used games like they use to, how would they make up for it? Go digital? That seems like the way everybody is going.

 

[Bebpo]

I don't really see how it would be a good thing for our favorite industry to completely cripple the used and rental markets.

What do the used game and rental markets do to help the industry? They should be gotten rid of completely as they only **** up everything in the game industry. But this is not the solution...I think (need to wait until we have more info on how this actually is gonna work).

 

[Bebpo]

Just to note, one thing we have to consider is how retailers would react to this. If they are no longer getting the revenue from used games like they use to, how would they make up for it? Go digital? That seems like the way everybody is going.

Also, If Sony is basically telling EB/Gamestop "**** you, go out of business please"...how do you think the stores are going to feel in terms of promoting the system?

 

[artful_dodger]

The people who would actually lose on this are the used retailers for sure. Gamestop / EB. Then again they can always try to sell you on that extended disc warranty.

 

[davepoobond]

Also, If Sony is basically telling EB/Gamestop "**** you, go out of business please"...how do you think the stores are going to feel in terms of promoting the system?

if ps3 ends up being #1....they'll be forced to probably.


but they'll obviously use their clout to not let it happen if this does go into effect.

 

[meltpotato]

Also, If Sony is basically telling EB/Gamestop "**** you, go out of business please"...how do you think the stores are going to feel in terms of promoting the system?

im still baffled as to why the first half of the store is all PSP crap. but logically speaking, well the answer is obvious

if they go out of business, where will annoying oily-faced pricks get jobs?

 

[Vyer]

What do the used game and rental markets do to help the industry? They should be gotten rid of completely as they only **** up everything in the game industry. But this is not the solution...I think (need to wait until we have more info on how this actually is gonna work).

They don't help developers; no. Though the used segment does keep the game stores afloat, which in turn effects new sales.

But I believe the used and rental markets (this includes stuff like Gamefly) is HUGE for the simple fact that they create a large, large userbase. I believe the growth of the industry is firmly rooted to those numbers.

There is a lot of money in used games and rentals. Many, many, many people don't go out and drop for new games and releases. They buy when cheaper, or rent, etc...which in turns guarantees they buy the systems and keep aware enough to buy the new stuff when it does catch their eye.

Gaming has become as big as it has because of the large userbase. I think if you start limiting their options, a large part of the less-than-hardcore will begin to drop off. And though some people here wouldn't care, that IMO is a very big deal. Those numbers would start to dip tremendously.

 

[datruth29]

What do the used game and rental markets do to help the industry? They should be gotten rid of completely as they only **** up everything in the game industry. But this is not the solution...I think (need to wait until we have more info on how this actually is gonna work).

The problem with this assumption is that you assume people who buy used games are going to be willing to buy the game non-used, or that people who rent games have the money to purchase full priced games. Fact of the matter is, as consumers, we want to pay the cheapest price. A company tries to find ways to get that price higher. And hence, the eternal struggle.

Also, If Sony is basically telling EB/Gamestop "**** you, go out of business please"...how do you think the stores are going to feel in terms of promoting the system?

I'm pretty sure they won't like it.

 

[Bebpo]

So why should anyone care about the group of people who will never buy a full priced game and only buy used/rent? Companies don't make money on hardware (unless they are Nintendo), they make it on software. No one wants those people in the industry.

 

[bluemax]

Wait, this isn't an old topic? Didn't we go through all this once before?

 

[artful_dodger]

They buy when cheaper, or rent, etc...which in turns guarantees they buy the systems and keep aware enough to buy the new stuff when it does catch their eye.

True, but keep in mind that almost all the hardware on the market nowadays is sold at a (sometimes) huge loss. The money is in licensing fees to the developers and profits made on software titles sold for the platform. People don't need a game rental service to try a game and see if they like it anymore. Digital demo downloads, streaming movies, mass media exposure all make knowing what games you want to buy a simple choice.

 

[DCharlie]

They should be gotten rid of completely as they only **** up everything in the game industry.

am i reading this right ? second hand stores **** up everything in the game industry?

 

[svenuce]

This isn't just about privacy. It's about right of ownership. If something is mine it's mine. I can take a shit on it, give it to someone or sink it underwater. Doesn't matter. It's mine.

True, if something is yours, you can do anything you want with it. However, within most EULAs, you don't own the game the way you think you do. You just have the right to use it.

This system simply takes that to an extreme place that allows you to transfer your right to use the product in exchange for fictional, limited use currency.

From a business perspective, this is amazing. I realize the uproar from consumers, but it closes a pretty significant loop in the publisher/developer revenue chain (one that the PC side has been fairly safe from since the disalloance of rental/resale of PC games).

I'm finding myself agreeing with Dodger in all of this.

 

[datruth29]

So why should anyone care about the group of people who will never buy a full priced game and only buy used/rent? Companies don't make money on hardware (unless they are Nintendo), they make it on software. No one wants those people in the industry.

Thats how you get new users. You know, sometimes people buy used games or rent not because they don't want to support the company, but because they can't afford to. And don't forget not every game is golden. Hence, the renting part. For instance, my friend was weary of Dead Raising and rented it. He found that he loved the game and bought it.

 

[Razoric]

am i reading this right ? second hand stores **** up everything in the game industry?

I think it's like a chicken and the egg thing....

The used games industry is huge because games cost too ****ing much but games cost too much partially because the used games industry is huge.

how to fix??? :O

 

[Bebpo]

am i reading this right ? second hand stores **** up everything in the game industry?

In Japan? Hell yes.

Used games are the #1 cause for the lowering sales of games in that country. If a game sells 100k on the charts, in reality there about 300-500k people who are going to be playing it, but 200-400k of them will be playing it through used copies that they buy in mint condition for 1000yen-3000yen cheaper within a week or two or three of release.

Get rid of used games completely in Japan, and I would bet $1,000 that you would see those numbers on the weekly charts double for total units moved per week.

So many people in Japan have the mindset of "Why buy a game on release date, when I can get it for 2000yen less in a few days?"

 

[datruth29]

In Japan? Hell yes.

Used games are the #1 cause for the lowering sales of games in that country. If a game sells 100k on the charts, in reality there about 300-500k people who are going to be playing it, but 200-400k of them will be playing it through used copies that they buy in mint condition for 1000yen-3000yen cheaper.

Get rid of used games completely in Japan, and I would bet $1,000 that you would see those numbers on the weekly charts double for total units moved per week.

I could see why this is true. The problem is, what do you do with a game you don't want anymore? Your telling me the person can't resell it? At all?

 

[Tellaerin]

...it wouldn't be too horrible, would it?

Actually, it would. Mainly because it would be severely undermining personal property rights, specifically first-sale doctrine. Heaven knows Dragona and I have different tastes when it comes to games and systems, but on this the two of us are on the same page. No ****ing way would I consent to something like this, no matter how much a company tries to 'incentivize' it to make it easier to swallow.

 

[Shouta]

Heh, it's like they want to shoot themselves in the foot. This can only be bad for them since it will turn their consumer base against them and basically ensuring they either lose everything or lose a major portion of it. It's a good theory but the reality is that even if you tie up the loophole in the chain, it'll mean nothing if you have no consumer base feeding the loop.

 

[Vyer]

So why should anyone care about the group of people who will never buy a full priced game and only buy used/rent? Companies don't make money on hardware (unless they are Nintendo), they make it on software. No one wants those people in the industry.

Because you can't assume they 'never buy'. However, the availability of options is one of the primary things that keeps them interested; and, as such, still a customer of the industry.

Sure, they may buy used games mostly, because they like the hobby and don't want to pay the expensive prices. But they will still be more likely to buy a new one now and then because of that. Not too mention that now he'll buy the system...the controllers...the memory...etc. etc.

The options make it more likely to create some sort of gamer. Maybe not a hardcore one, but one who will spend money. He wouldn't have bought, say, Ratchet and Clank at 50 bucks. But he bought it later on when it was 9.99 and loved it. And so then there's the chance that he will splurge a little more occasionally and buy the new Ratchet at 39.99. Or hell, maybe save up for a while and pick up a PS3 because he's learned to love Insomniac and really wants to play that Resistance game.

It's not as simple as black and white "people who ONLY buy new stuff" and "people who ONLY buy used". They are linked. And they play a big role in the success of this industry.

To put it simply, you are going to potentially start losing large chunks (don't kid yourself - these folks are big numbers) of your userbase. And I believe that is a very bad thing.

 

[Hunter D]

If this happens and is successful it will also be copied by other markets. I really hope that they don't try or fail if they do.

 

[DCharlie]

Used games are the #1 cause for the lowering sales of games in that country.

Yet nintendo are bucking that trend with them having several games looking to be heading for over 3 million copies. :/

The lowering sales trend (IMO) is more to do with people having more things to spend thier cash on - DVDs, music etc - all these sales in Japan are _UP_ big time.

If a game sells 100k on the charts, in reality there about 300-500k people who are going to be playing it, but 200-400k of them will be playing it through used copies that they buy in mint condition for 1000yen-3000yen cheaper within a week or two or three of release.

okay - so what makes you think that if they can't buy the second hand game at all that they are going to go out and buy games now that they are more expensive to that sort of buyer?

The other rumour doing the rounds is that PS3 games in Japan will be around 1000 yen more expensive than PS2 games prices - if that comes to be true, coupled with the no second hand market, that could be quite crappy.

Get rid of used games completely in Japan, and I would bet $1,000 that you would see those numbers on the weekly charts double for total units moved per week.

8O - see first point

So many people in Japan have the mindset of "Why buy a game on release date, when I can get it for 2000yen less in a few days?"

or is it "i have lots of things to spend cash on and 6800 for a game is taking the piss" ?

Sony might be about to solve this riddle for us once and for all.

 

[EviLore]

Actually, it would. Mainly because it would be severely undermining personal property rights, specifically first-sale doctrine. Heaven knows Dragona and I have different tastes when it comes to games and systems, but on this the two of us are on the same page. No ****ing way would I consent to something like this, no matter how much a company tries to 'incentivize' it to make it easier to swallow.

I'm not a fan of the concept in general; I like REALLY owning something and not being subject to all these sorts of terms. However, if it's going to happen and I just *have* to have MGS4 or something and buy a PS3, I'd prefer it being the way I described rather than the whole transaction going through sony.

 

[Red Scarlet]

I don't like it how it sounds, but I'm easily confused. Doesn't seem what I'd like to happen, though. Will wait and see. Evilore and others will be my guinea pigs.

 

[Zombie James]

What would be really nice would be if the original owner of the software could set time limits so they could still let their friends borrow games without cost. Like, "I authorize <insert user> the privilege of using <insert game> without cost for one month."

 

[artful_dodger]

For such a sensitive topic i'm surprised at how civil this has been. :thumbsup