Support NeoGAF

[antiquegamer]

From one of the more basic principles enshrined in the bargain between products and consumers that is copyright law?

I've gotta hand it to you: I've seen some real bad metaphors in GAF copyright topics, but this theme park ticket thing is easily the dumbest.

I don't think we really need to be insulting one another. Actually I find his analogy to theme park ticket to be interesting take on the whole game as experience notion and that we are essentially buying "license" or ticket.

I have no love for Steam, actually I stop PC gaming exclusively and bought console partly because of Steam model. I hate everything about digital only world but I know the days of physical media are numbered. (I still buy CD for music and Blu-ray disc, much to the amusement of my daughter and son who consume everything digitally). I buy very few titles per year on PC and only if I can't get the experience by other means. (Diablo, StarCraft) simply because I just hate the idea of just buying single user only experience. I hate that I can't simply just give my son StarCraft or Diablo to install on his computer like I would with Xbox games even when we live in the same house. I think the idea of used game is around because the game still come on physical media, something that is tangible and you can hold. As soon as console gaming go to PC Steam route where activation is require and you actually just own license to use such product then this used game market will cease to exist on console just as it did on the PC. Just like PC, we will buy "activation" license to enjoy experience that is not easily transferable or at least according to TOS.

 

[Dascu]

Yeah, and I would like us not to continue down that path, which is where used games is taking us. Towards shitty social/mobile/F2P. I'd prefer an alternative where deep, enjoyable single player games can actually have a fighting chance to make money. Because otherwise they don't get made. And they are already not getting made because of this.

They used to do fine, back in times where re-selling used games was easy and frequent. The problem is the budget explosion, even though we know that consumers will be happy with less (see all the indie games and cellphone games). Spend less money on the graphics, use crowdfunding if you want, and price in a flexible manner. Those are all ways to combat competition from secondary markets and piracy, while benefiting and respecting consumers.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Subscription MMOS have been largely replaced by F2P, not by some model that allows for used games.

Please stop with the car analogies. They're really awful.

I never implied they got replaced by used games, I just pointed out that the gamer will not bend over to pay per play methods, the way you sell tickets to a theme park. So your theme park metaphor is shit; there are no real perpetuity tickets and gamers don't accept the theme park model.

The car metaphor is actually a million times more relevant. But it obviously doesn't suit your agenda, so feel free to make up another dumb example to try to make a point that doesn't exist.

 

[NullPointer]

congratulations, you have successfully identified the reason why the aaa industry's problems are its own fault

Flawless.

Its made even worse by trying to be like movies and focusing on cinematics rather than mechanics. Replayability goes to shit. That and removing all of a game's challenge, so that everybody can finish the game in two sittings. By design.

Then annualizing and shutting down servers for the previous installment.

For multiplayer games its worse, since the more you wait after release to buy in, the more of an online tax you have to pay in the form of map packs required for matchmaking.

All of these are reasons to buy used, and flip your games quickly. And all of them are by design. Don't design such disposable content and then complain when people throw it away.

 

[Open Source]

You are aware that all of these things combined are a tiny fraction of the industry's revenue, right?

In the boxed game market, moving to non-transferable licenses is going to turn (to give a non-precise example) $10b revenue split over 10 titles into $6b on the top one or two. Good if you're Activision... bad if you're anyone else.

Not true, because publishers will have to lower prices to optimize sales, and publishers will get revenue that was previously going to GameStop. Publishers would GLADLY discount their titles to match GameStop prices if they could, once the early adopters have been charged full price. But they can't, because GameStop will just drop their prices further if they do.

 

[Yagharek]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

I don't get to take the theme park home.

 

[Open Source]

They used to do fine, back in times where re-selling used games was easy and frequent. The problem is the budget explosion, even though we know that consumers will be happy with less (see all the indie games and cellphone games). Spend less money on the graphics, use crowdfunding if you want, and price in a flexible manner. Those are all ways to combat competition from secondary markets and piracy, while benefiting and respecting consumers.

The budgets are a problem, but they are a product of the system. The big publishers make HUGE HUGE and relatively risk-free amounts of money on these games. So they do them and collect.

And then everything else makes shit revenue unless it's super cheap (XBLA, for example) or can compete with that AAA experience. So you either shrink and wither and die or you go big, maybe succeed, maybe flame out spectacularly.

There's very little middle ground possible.

 

[DarkFlow]

Flawless.

Its made even worse by trying to be like movies and focusing on cinematics rather than mechanics. Replayability goes to shit. That and removing all of a game's challenge, so that everybody can finish the game in two sittings. By design.

Yeah, I rented the new bioshock, and then beat it in three days. Spent 6 bucks total to play it. After I beat it ( and got mindfucked :lol ) there really was no reason for me to play it again. I don't really enjoy playing it on a harder setting again, and there was no multiplayer to keep you around. I might pick it up later when all the dlc is out or the goty editon is made since I enjoyed the game, but I don't think it was worth 60 bucks.

 

[Dr.Acula]

A game is a piece of media like a DVD, a book, or a CD. Where does this themepark stuff come from? I can sell my other media, so I should be able to sell games too.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Not true, because publishers will have to lower prices to optimize sales, and publishers will get revenue that was previously going to GameStop. Publishers would GLADLY discount their titles to match GameStop prices if they could, once the early adopters haev been charged full price. But they can't, because GameStop will just drop their prices further if they do.

Not only do you have no proof of that, but you probably can't name a single reason what incentive for it to happen.

They have no competition, they have all the pricing power, and will lower the price to please more consumers who have no other source to turn to? That benevolent seller you are describing is about as common as unicorns.

 

[Open Source]

congratulations, you have successfully identified the reason why the aaa industry's problems are its own fault

Because games that are designed to be satisfying and complete in a sane amount of time are a thing we want to get rid of? Or are you saying that we need to tack on multiplayer and f2p grinds and other bullshit onto every game?

 

[Yagharek]

A game is a piece of media like a DVD, a book, or a CD. Where does this themepark stuff come from? I can sell my other media, so I should be able to sell games too.

Since the recent moratorium on Bad Car Analogies™, Theme Parks are the next big thing.

Because games that are designed to be satisfying and complete in a sane amount of time are a thing we want to get rid of? Or are you saying that we need to tack on multiplayer and f2p grinds and other bullshit onto every game?

Well some games are going to encourage replays multiple times because of their high quality/variable gameplay or any plethora of possible reasons. Some other games are disposable, one-time-only affairs with no reason to keep hold of. That's the way it is. For the same reason I'll never watch Transformers again, I'll never play Uncharted 3 again. Why should I be forced to keep them when I can easily get a few dollars for them and put more money towards a new game?

 

[Open Source]

Not only do you have no proof of that, but you probably can't name a single reason what incentive for it to happen.

They have no competition, they have all the pricing power, and will lower the price to please more consumers who have no other source to turn to? That benevolent seller you are describing is about as common as unicorns.

Look. At. PC.

It has nothing to do with benevolence. It's following the changes in the supply/demand curve over time to maximize revenue.

 

[NullPointer]

Because games that are designed to be satisfying and complete in a sane amount of time are a thing we want to get rid of? Or are you saying that we need to tack on multiplayer and f2p grinds and other bullshit onto every game?

No, we should add achievements and grinds to movies, prohibit resale and then charge $60

 

[hooijdonk17]

Look. At. PC.

Seriously? LOL

The number of distribution channels on the PC alone make the comparison moot.

 

[hooijdonk17]

It has nothing to do with benevolence. It's following the changes in the supply/demand curve over time to maximize revenue.

Yeah, and if you actually knew about those curves you'd know they don't behave normally under monopolistic or closed market conditions, which are exactly what you are suggesting here: No second hand, complete control of distribution.

 

[michaelius]

A game is a piece of media like a DVD, a book, or a CD. Where does this themepark stuff come from? I can sell my other media, so I should be able to sell games too.

With great power comes even greater corruption - and games are only media when you can make effective anti used DRM.

 

[DarkFlow]

Can a mod just change his name to closed source, since nothing he says is anything close to open.

 

[Open Source]

Seriously? LOL

The number of distribution channels on the PC alone make the comparison moot.

Why?

Steam is the only major one. And competition is from other games, not from other distribution channels. The publishers control the prices of their products on each channel.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Why?

Steam is the only major one. And competition is from other games, not from other distribution channels. The publishers control the prices of their products on each channel.

Steam competes with brick and mortar as well as several other DD venues. Are you even for real?

Competition from other games is irrelevant in a system that hugely benefits 2-3 main publishers, instead of a monopoly you'll have a cartel with faux-competition.

 

[Dascu]

Look. At. PC.

It has nothing to do with benevolence. It's following the changes in the supply/demand curve over time to maximize revenue.

Is your argument that publishers cannot lower prices in the retail market because used games would constantly undercut them?

An example you put forward is the PC market (Steam mostly, I presume?) with very low prices? Yet why is this market not constantly undercut by piracy, with a price of zero?

 

[Open Source]

Yeah, and if you actually knew about those curves you'd know they don't behave normally under monopolistic or closed market conditions, which are exactly what you are suggesting here: No second hand, complete control of distribution.

There is no one with monopoly control of games on any existing major platform.

 

[PogiJones]

A game is a piece of media like a DVD, a book, or a CD. Where does this themepark stuff come from? I can sell my other media, so I should be able to sell games too.

From a legal perspective, movies and books are similar to theme parks, too, which is why Amazon now allows digital rentals. For most people, they consume them and they're done. You have no right to keep watching them after your time is up. Point is, in America, a seller has a right to condition their licenses. If you don't like the conditions, you don't pay for the license. Legally, I wonder if books and movies were originally miscategorized as non-IP because it was an unknown concept, and it's stuck. The industry seems to be doing okay, so I wouldn't want to mess with it, but as a legal concept, it would probably be clearer if treated as an IP.

 

[Open Source]

Steam competes with brick and mortar as well as several other DD venues. Are you even for real?

The publishers of games on Steam don't compete with those stores. That's who controls the prices. This is not that hard.

 

[Open Source]

Is your argument that publishers cannot lower prices in the retail market because used games would constantly undercut them?

An example you put forward is the PC market (Steam mostly, I presume?) with very low prices? Yet why is this market not constantly undercut by piracy, with a price of zero?

Because piracy is illegal and often provides an inferior version of the games.

Used games suffer from neither of those drawbacks.

 

[hooijdonk17]

There is no one with monopoly control of games on any existing major platform.

Under this scheme Microsoft owns all distribution rights to games sold on any medium and presumably (and very probably) Activision / EA will have a cartel considering the number of games they publish and the revenue they make. In essence, Microsoft is sucking up to Activision / EA who are salivating like rabid dogs.

 

[hooijdonk17]

The publishers of games on Steam don't compete with those stores. That's who controls the prices. This is not that hard.

Yes they do; their prices on Steam are in direct competition with what the brick and mortar stores undercut their games for. Quit pretending that games on Steam are never sold as physical copies, that is not the case. Steam DOES compete with physical media, it's one of the reasons why it actually has to price well.

 

[Dascu]

Because piracy is illegal and often provides an inferior version of the games.

Used games suffer from neither of those drawbacks.

The (il)legality of piracy is disputable and inferior version is laughable, given that these pirated games have less or no intrusive DRM, available sooner than release and more open access to mods and customization.

 

[Open Source]

Under this scheme Microsoft owns all distribution rights to games sold on any medium and presumably (and very probably) Activision / EA will have a cartel considering the number of games they publish and the revenue they make. In essence, Microsoft is sucking up to Activision / EA who are salivating like rabid dogs.

If Activision and EA resort to price fixing, someone else will come along and sell games for cheaper and steal their business, since Microsoft will give publishers control over pricing (with the floor set by whatever royalty they charge).

 

[Open Source]

The (il)legality of piracy is disputable and inferior version is laughable, given that these pirated games have less or no intrusive DRM, available sooner than release and more open access to mods and customization.

Yes, piracy is illegal, not disputable.

And the pirated games are often missing online features, don't get patches as quickly or at all, don't allow for customer service, etc.

I don't know why you brought up piracy at all anyway.

 

[Yagharek]

Because piracy is illegal and often provides an inferior version of the games.

Used games suffer from neither of those drawbacks.

What about online passes?

 

[hooijdonk17]

If Activision and EA resort to price fixing, someone else will come along and sell games for cheaper and steal their business, since Microsoft will give publishers control over pricing (with the floor set by whatever royalty they charge).

You still don't understand that Microsoft and big publishers are in the same bad, having an orgy, right? Microsoft did not cook this up alone. They, and the big publishers, came up with this together.

I just give up. Seriously. Think whatever you want. For all I care you're on their payroll.

 

[Open Source]

Yes they do; their prices on Steam are in direct competition with what the brick and mortar stores undercut their games for. Quit pretending that games on Steam are never sold as physical copies, that is not the case. Steam DOES compete with physical media, it's one of the reasons why it actually has to price well.

Again, Steam does not set the prices. Publishers control how much their games sell for on Steam and how much they charge retail to buy their game. They control the prices in EVERY distribution channel to some degree, although retail can sell for cheaper than normal if they like (it's rare for obvious reasons).

Publishers don't cut prices on Steam to compete with their own products in other channels. That would be pretty fucking stupid. They compete with other games.

 

[elohel]

How can so many people not understand that the used game market supports the new game market?

how?

 

[hooijdonk17]

Again, Steam does not set the prices. Publishers control how much their games sell for on Steam and how much they charge retail to buy their game. They control the prices in EVERY distribution channel to some degree, although retail can sell for cheaper than normal if they like (it's rare for obvious reasons).

Publishers don't cut prices on Steam to compete with their own products in other channels. That would be pretty fucking stupid. They compete with other games.

And that is why the Steam analogy for what MS is doing with Xbone is braindead. I fail to get your point. At all. From the beginning I've been saying Steam is its own thing and has no monopoly over a system, and hence it's inherently not as evil as anything Microsoft can do. It can't control prices for the system, but it can offer an alternative with better convenience and better prices.

I keep referring to the situation about the Xbone and you keep going back to Steam to debunk it. What's the matter with you? This is the second time you do it. I refer to A, you debunk B and pretend you've dealt with the A issue.

 

[Ikael]

As the owners of the intellectual property, they can choose to sell it as a limited and conditional license, even on a disc, such as Office. You cannot buy something the owner is unwilling to sell.

You are saying that developers have chosen to rent me their game as if it was a service rather than selling it as a commodity as such has happened for the last 40 years of so of videogame history. Which would be ok, if that wouldn't be a wholly dishonest proposal. There are some serious grounds here for suing for false and misleading advertisement, and I am not even joking.

Also, not that I would mind to be able to rent games directly from the publisher, either. Let me rent their "service" by hours, as if it was like you know, an actual straightfoward and honest rental business. So I can stop paying for their "service" once I have finish their meager 6 hours single player campaign. This is not going to solve the big publisher's woes, but rather increase them and made them even more apparent.

 

[Open Source]

And that is why the Steam analogy for what MS is doing with Xbone is braindead. I fail to get your point. At all. From the beginning I've been saying Steam is its own thing and has no monopoly over a system, and hence it's inherently not as evil as anything Microsoft can do. It can't control prices for the system, but it can offer convenience and better prices.

I keep referring to the situation about the Xbone and you keep going back to Steam to debunk it. What's the matter with you? This is the second time you do it. I refer to A, you debunk B and pretend you've dealt with the A issue.

So you are saying that because there is only one marketplace instead of many marketplaces on XB1, competition among publishers and appeals to price-sensitive users cannot exist?

 

[hooijdonk17]

So you are saying that because there is only one marketplace instead of many marketplaces on XB1, competition that drives down prices cannot exist?

It goes deeper than that.

There's a market, and there are booths for sellers who pay the market owner a cut of their sales as well as the right to work at that booth. It's the only market in the city and you can't import. The buyers are not allowed to barter with each other directly, all barters have to be registered in the market and the sellers get an arbitrary (and presumably outrageous) cut of the transaction (just because). Two of the sellers' combined market share dwarfs the rest.

The only logical result is these sellers and market owner cooperating to keep prices as high as possible.

And this is what you are advocating.

The only competitions that existed in the closed XBOX ecosystem before now were the brick and mortar stores and second hand games. With one swoop Microsoft are eliminating both by introducing this DRM as part of their physical sales.

And if you agree with this, something's not right with you (or you have other agendas.. which I'm really inclined to believe.)

 

[GHG]

how?

Many people trade in their last bought game to buy a new game. If you take away the option for that individual to trade in their old game thats one new game sale lost.

 

[Open Source]

It goes deeper than that.

There's a market, and there are booths for sellers who pay the market owner a cut of their sales as well as the right to work at that booth. It's the only market in the city and you can't import. The buyers are not allowed to barter with each other directly, all barters have to be registered in the market and the sellers get an arbitrary (and presumably outrageous) cut of the transaction (just because). Two of the sellers' combined market share dwarfs the rest.

The only logical result is these sellers and market owner cooperating to keep prices as high as possible.

And this is what you are advocating.

The only competitions that existed in the closed XBOX ecosystem before now were the brick and mortar stores and second hand games. With one swoop Microsoft are eliminating both by introducing this DRM as part of their physical sales.

And if you agree with this, something's not right with you (or you have other agendas.. which I'm really inclined to believe.)

Sure, if the XB1 were the only video game playing machine on the planet.

My agenda is that I want to see a healthy game industry where a wide array of game types are possible to make, not just ones that are impervious to used game sales.

 

[rvy]

how?

What do you mean how? Do you think everybody who buys new games doesn't trade in their older ones?

 

[Open Source]

Many people trade in their last bought game to buy a new game. If you take away the option for that individual to trade in their old game thats one new game sale lost.

That's half the story. The other half is that people looking to buy games now buy used instead of new because those traded-in games are now available.

It's a net loss in new sales.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Sure, if the XB1 were the only video game playing machine on the planet.

Yeah, we go full circle back to "Let's not buy XB1", and now you can explain to me how exactly has this scheme helped gaming in general, as PA argues?

Actually, don't. I've had enough of you.

 

[Kingbrave]

Theme parks also don't kick you out after 6 hours and expect you to pay ticket price to be allowed right back in.

 

[Brashnir]

Theme parks also don't kick you out after 6 hours and expect you to pay ticket price to be allowed right back in.

actually, they do, only it's about 10-11 hours.

 

[PogiJones]

You are saying that developers have chosen to rent me their game as if it was a service rather than selling it as a commodity as such has happened for the last 40 years of so of videogame history. Which would be ok, if that wouldn't be a wholly dishonest proposal. There are some serious grounds here for suing for false and misleading advertisement, and I am not even joking.

Also, not that I would mind to be able to rent games directly from the publisher, either. Let me rent their "service" by hours, as if it was like you know, an actual straightfoward and honest rental business. So I can stop paying for their "service" once I have finish their meager 6 hours single player campaign. This is not going to solve the big publisher's woes, but rather increase them and made them even more apparent.

I agree. Unfortunately, courts have pretty consistently enforced browser wrap and click wrap contracts, so even if the fact that it's only a license is within the TOS, it's still valid. I agree it's dumb, and should be clear. If MS does this, they should make it very obvious.

 

[Steroyd]

PC gamers that use Steam agree with this guy. But to stop that, maybe MS and Sony could sell digital games with DRM cheaper than retail.

Sony attempted this with their first full digitally downloaded game Warhawk, and pretty much backpedaled since, although rather lately the prices of their first party stuff have become reasonable.

Every other third party DD is about £50 where retail games are £40, I'm assuming the retailers put them under pressure for that to happen.

The budgets are a problem, but they are a product of the system. The big publishers make HUGE HUGE and relatively risk-free amounts of money on these games. So they do them and collect.

And then everything else makes shit revenue unless it's super cheap (XBLA, for example) or can compete with that AAA experience. So you either shrink and wither and die or you go big, maybe succeed, maybe flame out spectacularly.

There's very little middle ground possible.

On the contrary. Heavy Rain cost €16.7 million to make and made Sony "more than €100 million"

Granted nearly €17 million spent on making the game and €40 million in total including advertising isn't a minimal fee by any means for the lower end of the spectrum, the point is that if publishers play it smart and don't keep spending $100 million trying to chase 10 million sellers only to break even, then the industry wouldn't be in the state it's in.

how?

Normally when I sell my games it's to buy new ones...

 

[vpance]

The budgets are a problem, but they are a product of the system. The big publishers make HUGE HUGE and relatively risk-free amounts of money on these games. So they do them and collect.

And then everything else makes shit revenue unless it's super cheap (XBLA, for example) or can compete with that AAA experience. So you either shrink and wither and die or you go big, maybe succeed, maybe flame out spectacularly.

There's very little middle ground possible.

I'd like to see an environment where game creators are free to make games as varied and as big budget as movies can be, relatively speaking, without the worry of closing shop if it isn't mass market enough. Sure some movies bomb hard but I think a majority can end up living on to profit after DVD's, Bluray, and rentals.

 

[faceless007]

That's half the story. The other half is that people looking to buy games now buy used instead of new because those traded-in games are now available.

It's a net loss in new sales.

Which, for the umpteenth time, is no different from every other line of reusable packaged goods on the planet.

If used were universally more desirable than new, why do any games sell new copies at all? To hear you tell it, it's a miracle that any games--actually, not just games, but anything--manages to sell any factory-sealed units at all.

Anyway, you never really addressed my primary question, which was: Why do you hold saving an industry from (perceived) external threats to be a normative good that warrants rewriting property and consumer rights? You said you would favor the same measures for music and movies if they were as encumbered as gaming (supposedly) is. Why do they need to be "protected" at all? Is it just entertainment media you think needs to be protected from the scourge of rational consumers? Should measures have been taken to save Polaroid when digital photography rose up and stole its thunder? Even now, film photography is on the decline thanks to digital. History is full of industries that had to adapt to changing technology and consumer habits and failed to do so. So how do you determine which industries "deserve" to be saved, and why is doing so the operative concern for you?

 

[vpance]

Which, for the umpteenth time, is no different from every other line of reusable packaged goods on the planet.

If used were universally more desirable than new, why do any games sell new copies at all? To hear you tell it, it's a miracle that any games--actually, not just games, but anything--manages to sell any factory-sealed units at all.

Anyway, you never really addressed my primary question, which was: Why do you hold saving an industry from (perceived) external threats to be a normative good that warrants rewriting property and consumer rights? You said you would favor the same measures for music and movies if they were as encumbered as gaming (supposedly) is. Why do they need to be "protected" at all? Is it just entertainment media you think needs to be protected from the scourge of rational consumers? Should measures have been taken to save Polaroid when digital photography rose up and stole its thunder? Even now, film photography is on the decline thanks to digital. History is full of industries that had to adapt to changing technology and consumer habits and failed to do so. So how do you determine which industries "deserve" to be saved, and why is doing so the operative concern for you?

Movies have multiple streams of revenue, and music is cheap as hell to produce. While games have to usually become more eye catching and groundbreaking in features in order to attract a new generation of buyers. And they've only mostly got one shot at success, basically the short post launch time window when it goes on sale. Afterwards, it makes the used game rounds at Gamestop and the bargain bin.

It is a unique form of entertainment, no doubt about it.