-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PA Report - The Xbox One will kill used games, that's good
- Thread starter hardcastlemccormick
- Start date
StopMakingSense
Member
Oh god, wasn't even thinking about it that way, but that is an AMAZING rebuttal to that.
You, sir, get the post of the month. This industry is reaping what it sowed. They deserve their fate.
Tylahedras
Banned
Are you sure that adam orth didn't Just change his name?
Ace Harding
Member
It actually is. You should tweet that at him.
No, people will wait until the game's price drops to used prices. If it happens too much, Microsoft will relent on their used game policy. However, buying a new game cheaply still brings more money to the publisher than a launch window used game, so I doubt they will care.
In the A -> B comparison above, it's faulty logic because if you're buying a game at $60, you have money to burn; the used cycle is ultimately irrelevant. $60 will feed a family of four for a week if you're careful. If the used cycle is that important to you, wait until the price drops to $40. Buying games at $60 is the real problem, as that sends the message that that's an acceptable price point for games.
This, so much this. Publishers are trying to blame consumers for their own shortcomings.
Guess what, you stupid dumbass publishers, a used game market for a certain game barely exists, if at all, within the first month of the launch of the game(which is when the majority of sales occur I'm assuming). If you can't recoup your costs within that first month, there is either something fundamentally wrong with the way you produce the game or something fundamentally wrong with your financing and budgeting, it's as simple as that, gamers are not to blame here.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Haha yes, instead of just taking more of the profit, these publishers will lower the price of the product for...no reason? They already know we will pay $60 for it, doesn't matter how much of a cut they are getting.
Seriously, I'm not the "OMG CORPORATIONS!!!" type of person. But people need to get it through their thick skulls that publishers aren't your buddies. They're not giving you games out of the kindness of their heart. I give them money, they give me a product. It's a very simple transaction. Expecting any type of unsolicited charity from them is naive and foolish.
Seriously, I'm not the "OMG CORPORATIONS!!!" type of person. But people need to get it through their thick skulls that publishers aren't your buddies. They're not giving you games out of the kindness of their heart. I give them money, they give me a product. It's a very simple transaction. Expecting any type of unsolicited charity from them is naive and foolish.
RedNumberFive
Banned
In the last few months Twitter has been doing a great job of outing disgusting people.
As someone who's worked both the retails side in managment and on the publisher/dev side killing used games is asinine.
I saw alot of trades in my day and the ones trading in newer games almost never used that credit for a used purchase. These customers were the backbone of my business. They drove my pre-orders, they drove my new game sales. Take away their in-store currency and the games industry can kiss goodbye more than just GameStop.
I saw alot of trades in my day and the ones trading in newer games almost never used that credit for a used purchase. These customers were the backbone of my business. They drove my pre-orders, they drove my new game sales. Take away their in-store currency and the games industry can kiss goodbye more than just GameStop.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I'd be really interested to see how being an 8th gen game collector will be in 15 years.
I don't (in general) spend more than $10-15 on games in general.... however killing used games will affect console longevity as far as physical copies are concerned.... I'm sure the contract you agree to when you purchase digital says they can end your access at any time for no reason at all... so yeah that is a thing.
Screw Digital
Screw Digital
To be fair, consumers want a better product for free. Acting like the business side doesn't matter is what results in development studios dying off precipitously. If there's market demand for a product, but the current form of the secondhand market allows more than half of all sales of a particular product to come from secondhand sales which only benefit a middleman, while effectively costing gamers the same while studios get nothing, I can understand the desire to change that structure.
That said, I have serious issues with the "solution" that the Xbox One represents. That may change as more details come forward, but they sure as heck don't have a plan in place now that I care to be a part of.
ShinobiFist
Banned
No, it makes buying and selling used games more complicated. Especially with niche titles.
I'm surpreised Kuchera didn't hashtag #dealwithit
Omegasquash
Member
Exactly...it's simply maximizing profit at additional consumer expense. Not new functionality. Paywalling old functionality.
Yes. I know for a fact that there are people in my life that would say "well no more buying used games for you!" Even though I don't buy used as a habit (save for rare or out of print). I simply won't be able to swap a game with my friends or family members.
It's terrible for the consumer given the current trend of non-ownership of what you buy. And I get it...you enter an agreement when you buy digital software. The fact that your physical purchases are not yours to do with what you will anymore is a disturbing fact. Next up: you don't actually own your XBox...you're renting it!
It totally fits!
AHA-Lambda
Member
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Except Green Day is funnier.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
If I had a Twitter account I would. Somebody else is free to.
If we didn't already have a ton of blog-post-esque threads on GAF I'd open one up to discuss those ideas. I feel like it's an undercurrent sentiment lately.
I don't see what made Tomb Raider cost $100M, when the Uncharted games are 20-30M a pop.
Green Day at least still puts effort into pretending they're the small guy. Penny Arcade will tell you they're the rogues out one side of the mouth and make you buy 30$ worth of pins just so you can meet Mike or Jerry out the other.
This article isn't really surprising considering the amount of money they get from the interests that don't want used games to exist.
Except it doesn't. At all.
King Tubby
Member
If this continues it'll be the makings of the next big video game industry crash.
Zabant
Member
Dude has just come off as a huge douche, way to shit on the underclass especially when you get most your games for free.
I couldn't afford a HDTV till i got my first job in 06, my mother was kind enough to get me a 360 back in 05 and I bought a HDTV the following year. Just because someone does not have the latest and greatest of every gadget does not mean they don't deserve to play.
Explain how it's illogical that people who can't afford Internet probably also can't afford to drop $500++ on a next gen console with full priced games. This goes back to the stupid "XBOX ONE ONLY HAS HDMI WTF!!!" argument. You want in on the next gen, there is always a very high price tag for that. It has NEVER been cheap, going back to my first console, an Atari 5200. That son of a bitch was $800 including games, adjusted for inflation.
Toys cost money. Shiny new toys, the "first on your block!" toys, have always been very expensive. That is the way it is, and has always been.
You "deserve" what you can "afford". If you can't afford the cost of entry, play the old shit. That's what it's there for.
Having a competent team that knows it's shit helps save a buck or two. Not spending millions on expensive ads helps as well.
Because people who live in shitty areas of the world with no internet still want to play games. People fighting overseas in our Military still want to play games. It's not as simple as "BUY INTERNET". It's not freaking offered.
marketing.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Microsoft will not revise their used game strategy. This is the same argument that I heard with many people saying, "well if Sony improves their online services, all MS has to do is make Live free and they win!" No, they will never do that. That is leaving money on the table. They spent years developing this change in business model and they're not going to cut it out short of being Wii U levels of disastrous sales.
You're also assuming this change in business model won't seem to have any effect with consumers.
The market changes and consumers are accepting of new business models with new platforms when they make sense. When games, movies and music went digital, there wasn't necessarily a huge uproar of people not being able to share their content with others. If there was, it took an understanding of the medium to realize that it wasn't really technically possible without the main business provider offering some kind of digital used storefront. So most accepted it and purchase digital, with many still buying Blu-Ray, CDs, Vinyl, and other physical mediums. Some like it instant, others like the idea of physical ownership.
Microsoft is going another direction. There are digital game sales, and there are physical ones, just like all previous generations. But for the first time, MS is stepping in and saying, WHOA, you cannot do with this physical disc as you please. You cannot buy, sell, borrow, or rent this disc in any capacity without paying us first.
Ok the consumer asks, why is that? The answer isn't because this is a new medium that doesn't allow for that kind of trade (like digital goods). The answer isn't because this is a brand new format that requires special digital treatment that requires an installation for tech reasons. The answer is because pirates are bad and game publishers want to be paid more. Or as I'm sure a Gamestop conversation will go between staff and consumer:
"Why can't I sell back/buy a used Xbox One game?"
"Because Microsoft doesn't allow that."
Now let's see how far that answer gets with people.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Except that's not how it works.
Shop A buys new game for $45
Customer A buys a game for $60
Customer A trades it for $30, of which $25 is spent on new gaming products
Customer B buys traded game for $50
Shop A has made $35
Publishers have made $70
In your scenario there is no advantage to buying used. Where is the sense in buying a used version of a game for $60? It is just flawed all around and you have created this unrealistic scenario to paint used gaming in the worst possible light, when in fact overall used gaming is probably good for the industry as it allows publishers to maintain this façade of AAA pricing in games.
Omegasquash
Member
In fairness, I think Scott's response would have been much better put as "what about the 1000's that can't afford $60, but are able to buy games at a lower price later on?"
I agree with Kuchera's response, but I don't agree with the way he gave it. 140 characters isn't much to go on, however. I guess. I can't believe I'm defending his response since I'm in stark disagreement with his piece, but whatever.
basically this, used games and lending /borrowing games just makes financial sense to consumers.
Seriously. Show me the cheaper games first and then and only then I might jump in.
RedNumberFive
Banned
It sounds like you have the empathy level of an Adam Orth or Ben Kuchera.
These are some of the most intelligent posts that I've ever read.
eso76
Member
At this point, since they're games as services and not as goods you can 'own', they could aswell go for always online required, give you the game for free, and charge pay per play.
Even if it was 1/$ per hour of game (excluding load times, time spent in menu's etc) i would end up paying games a lot less than i usually do, since i generally finish SP (20 hrs) and then forget about them.
Don't stone me, but i think this would have benefits on consoles.
Devs would be encouraged to put more content in their games,
Even smaller devs could release small games and still make money from a lot of people having fun with their games for 2, 3 hours.
DLC wouldn't exist. Devs would be encouraged to release free DLC, because that would renew gamers' interest in their games, they would play them some more to try out the new content.
Think a game suck ? you quit playing and giving devs money.
Game's good ? Developer is earning the money.
I don't know, the industry should have taught devs and manufacturers that asking a lot of people a very little sum of money is more profitable.
Even if it was 1/$ per hour of game (excluding load times, time spent in menu's etc) i would end up paying games a lot less than i usually do, since i generally finish SP (20 hrs) and then forget about them.
Don't stone me, but i think this would have benefits on consoles.
Devs would be encouraged to put more content in their games,
Even smaller devs could release small games and still make money from a lot of people having fun with their games for 2, 3 hours.
DLC wouldn't exist. Devs would be encouraged to release free DLC, because that would renew gamers' interest in their games, they would play them some more to try out the new content.
Think a game suck ? you quit playing and giving devs money.
Game's good ? Developer is earning the money.
I don't know, the industry should have taught devs and manufacturers that asking a lot of people a very little sum of money is more profitable.
parents especially.
Omegasquash
Member
I've seen them drop that far ONLY in the case that they're selling poorly. VERY poorly. And even then it's not been universal. That's my experience, however.
Clockwork5
Member
I really do agree that there are some positive aspects to the used game policy. This being the main one. Buh bye gamestop, you can keep your $6 for the preowned copy of a recent release for which you will charge $54.99.
My Marine buddy was in Iraq for a couple years. They played ancient, shitty PS2 and Gamecube games because that's all they had. He once told me that if he ever sees the Jedi Starfighter game case again, he will get PTSD. He was kidding (I think).
People who live in truly shitty areas of the world also may not have a high degree of personal safety, or they might not have the greatest cars, etc. etc.. I would think Internet and high end gaming systems would be the least of their concerns.
Empathy has nothing to do with it. I come from the real world, where toys cost money. I have a huge degree of empathy for people who don't know where their next meal is coming from, whose children have cancer, a home situation where both parents are unemployed and their kids aren't getting medical care, or any number of awful circumstances.
I do not have a large degree of empathy for entitled shits who think that because they exist, they deserve very expensive toys for minimal amounts of money. So yes. I do lack a lot of empathy for certain types of people.
Kuchera also fails to understand that it's certain feasible for someone to pay 500$ for a new console, but stop before paying 80$ a month for internet considering that internet is not uniformly priced even within the United States, let alone the world.
The console is a one time cost, often bought with money saved up for Christmas over the year. Internet is recurring monthly and in some cases will overtake the money spent on the console itself in less than a year.