bigace33
Member
wait a minute, what?Does the person that buys a movie ticket have a RIGHT to see that movie again and/or SELL that movie ticket to someone else after it's been consumed?
wait a minute, what?Does the person that buys a movie ticket have a RIGHT to see that movie again and/or SELL that movie ticket to someone else after it's been consumed?
None of that has any bearing on my argument. I didn't say the experiences were the same, I said that the way the value is assigned is the same. In both cases you pay for the right to an experience, whatever form that experience takes.
They're not, that wasn't my point.
My point was to say that it's certainly within Microsoft or Sony's RIGHTS as PLATFORM HOLDERS to restrict the second hand distribution of their (or their partner's) content.
Videogames are consumable forms of entertainment that do not lose their intrinsic value (so long as the disc isn't damaged) when sold second hand (unlike a car).
The business models are evolving, but GameStop's rise this past decade has certainly extracted a huge percentage of the gaming business and it doesn't contribute anything of tangible value to the industry itself.
No, because the business model doesn't revolve around making money off of hardware. It's generally been a net-loser in order to profit from software sales.
yea it's not a new phenomenon but game stop is 10x worse then EB Babbage etc. when it comes to used games. eb babbages funcoland when i was growing up were in select locations and rarely had their own stores outside of malls. gamestop on the other hand doubled the size of the company and has became a force behind used games. anytime i go into their store( i rarely do) they ALWAYS try to convince me to buy games used to "save" money. I can imagine how many less fortunate individuals they scam by helping them save 3 bucks.
yea it's not a new phenomenon but game stop is 10x worse then EB Babbage etc. when it comes to used games. eb babbages funcoland when i was growing up were in select locations and rarely had their own stores outside of malls. gamestop on the other hand doubled the size of the company and has became a force behind used games. anytime i go into their store( i rarely do) they ALWAYS try to convince me to buy games used to "save" money. I can imagine how many less fortunate individuals they scam by helping them save 3 bucks.
If they can't make money on $100,000,000 games then they shouldn't spend $100,000,000 on games.
Remember when the Sixaxis didn't have rumble because its motion control and rumble functionality couldn't work in the same controller? Yeah.
Don't pretend you're unaware of Sony's historical problems with being truthful.
1UP: We have one question we have to ask you before we go. A couple days ago you resolved the Immersion/Sony case. What does that mean for PlayStation gamers? After months and months of "well the controller's great because it's really lite" and now rumble is going to make it a little heaver. I mean, that's a bit of a PR nightmare to sort of have backed away from a tech and now saying, "We're all back together again so it's OK".
Harrison: First of all, we've just kissed and made up. We've just settled our differences. And, as we've said in the announcements, we're looking at ways to work together. And it's genuine; those really are the intentions. As to previous statements that I made, what do you expect me to say? We were in a lawsuit; we were in litigation. Of course I have to defend our view. And you know, actually, I still truly believe having the SIXAXIS controller, the way it is, is the best way to control games. We're looking forward to working with Immersion going forward, and who knows where that will lead us.
Just because you can sell the disc doesn't mean it's their responsibility to make sure the disc retains its value. You can still sell the disc with whatever system Microsoft is cooking up, it's just worth less because of the money you will have to pay to reactivate it. It's this an anti-consumer practice? Yes, it is. But they haven't taken away your right to sell what you own.
Just because you can sell the disc doesn't mean it's their responsibility to make sure the disc retains its value. You can still sell the disc with whatever system Microsoft is cooking up, it's just worth less because of the money you will have to pay to reactivate it. It's this an anti-consumer practice? Yes, it is. But they haven't taken away your right to sell what you own.
And if you're looking at the legality of this, you need to stop looking at games as media (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray) and start looking at games as software, which is what they actually are. You don't have the ability to sell the copy of Windows you bought after you've registered it without jumping through hoops, or old copies of software like AutoCAD or Visual Studio.
Is this even about the $100M games? Those being the GTA's and the Halo's that all do manage to make a fuck ton of money anyways.
thankfully they aren't trying to take used games away completely. next generation i may have to exit though if its full DD with no kind of rewards.
The word experience shouldn't be used either as everything can be titled as an experience like the car you drive or the book you are reading. A ticket is only for 1 playing of a piece of media while a game entitles you to infinite play. Saying "experience" doesn't mean that they are any where near the same.
One thing that sucks with no DRM approach is that you can't just install the game, and put the disc back to the case. You still have to swap discs to play different games. Also, it's easy to imagine that with this DRM in place, for every purchased disc, they'd just grant you a supplement download of the game from PSN, which they have no chance of doing otherwise. Sure you can just buy games off of PSN to begin with (and I'll probably just do that) but for games that come with art books and special edition boxes, it's nice to have that from time to time, without having to pay another time to get PSN game download.
Sadly I'm ready to admit that at this point, no-DRM is practically anti consumer, when it comes to my own use case.
One thing that sucks with no DRM approach is that you can't just install the game, and put the disc back to the case. You still have to swap discs to play different games. Also, it's easy to imagine that with this DRM in place, for every purchased disc, they'd just grant you a supplement download of the game from PSN, which they have no chance of doing otherwise. Sure you can just buy games off of PSN to begin with (and I'll probably just do that) but for games that come with art books and special edition boxes, it's nice to have that from time to time, without having to pay another time to get PSN game download.
Sadly I'm ready to admit that at this point, no-DRM is practically anti consumer, when it comes to my own use case.
thankfully they aren't trying to take used games away completely. next generation i may have to exit though if its full DD with no kind of rewards.
Gamestop isn't the only store in the world. It also isn't the only way to sell a game.
Gamestop doesn't even exist outside of America apart from Ireland and maybe another country. I can go into CEX and buy a copy of Nintendoland right now for £15 preowned. How much is it brand new and digital? £49.99
Wheres the problem there? It's definitely not the preowned store offering a decent price now, is it?
Of course they are, and if you think otherwise then you're fucking delusional.
Going by what Phil Harrison confirmed in an interview, if a kid takes his copy of Call Of Dudebro 25 for the Xbox one into school and lends it to a friend, this will happen:
- insert game into Xbox
- "this game is not registered to your console. Please pay the price of the game to activate it"
So yeah. That's called taking away used games.
That never made sense to me. Sometimes it seems like Sony purposely tries to lose money. Take PS+ for example: it's become such a good service it's incentivizing people NOT to buy games. I'm sure the loss of sales is higher than the cost of PS+.
Well that's what I'm planning to do, but I addressed where the problem still exists for me later in the post. While, they could technically solve this problem by just providing a one time download code for the same game on PSN, this would in practice allow two people to play the game for the price of one, so it's likely something they won't ever do.If that's what you want, go digital. No need to trample on consumers to get what already exists.
Is this even about the $100M games? Those being the GTA's and the Halo's that all do manage to make a fuck ton of money anyways.
CDs DVDs and Blu-Rays are also software. The definition of software is too fuzzy for this argument to work.
If half the gaming population thought as you did and rejected their online retail pricing, and the other half that was willing to buy at that price already bought, guess what comes next? They would lower the price because it doesn't take any effort to do so and they want the other half to buy. And so on and so on.
Sadly, we've come to a point where budgets are so massive, a game making a fuck ton of money can still be considered a failure.
Why do you think I'm being sarcastic? I'd like to purchase a physical copy of the game and get a download version of it for free. To me, that's more valuable than buying used games, which I practically never do. I wish there was a process that would allow this to be possible as well as let you borrow and sell games freely, but I can't see how it would work.If you are being sarcastic, then well done.
if you're being serious, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Why do you think I'm being sarcastic? I'd like to purchase a physical copy of the game and get a download version of it for free. To me, that's more valuable than buying used games, which I practically never do.
The issue with online retail right now is the fact that retail stores would refuse to carry the items if they weren't priced competitively. basically you couldn't have a New DD for $50 and a retail for 60. Sony Nintendo and MS still need retail.
Probably hoped they'd prop the company up rather than merely break even.Is it? Didn't SE come out a few days ago and say TR and Hitman both broke even and will see sequels?
Too bad they had to adjust the franchises the way they did, and to just break even too.
That difference isn't intrinsic, it's practical. If they wanted to, the Game Industry could distribute new games like first run movies where you bought admission to a local arcade to play Uncharted 4 in 6 hour blocks. And if the Film Industry wanted to they could start offering unlimited viewing tickets for movies at a higher price. None of that changes the value argument I'm making.
Lying with good reason is still fucking lying. You know that.
Or do I really need to break out the old, long list of absurd Sony quotes?
Sadly, we've come to a point where budgets are so massive, a game making a fuck ton of money can still be considered a failure.
Exactly, which is why retail should go away. I'd rather my monies go to the pubs than float around in the retail used market. This half measure DRM stuff trying to appease all parties just makes the situation shitty for everyone.
If they can't make money on $100,000,000 games then they shouldn't spend $100,000,000 on games.
My basic definition of software (and I'll admit that there isn't a very clear definition of it) is that it needs an executable that is contained somewhere on the disc (or in the data that you download) to run. Movies and music aren't software because there doesn't need to be an executable on them to work correctly. Just because something is a digital file doesn't really mean that it's software.
Sony does it now with the Vita. DD games are often 10% less.
My basic definition of software (and I'll admit that there isn't a very clear definition of it) is that it needs an executable that is contained somewhere on the disc (or in the data that you download) to run. Movies and music aren't software because there doesn't need to be an executable on them to work correctly. Just because something is a digital file doesn't really mean that it's software.
I hope both Microsoft and Sony get a cut from used game sales. The industry would be a LOT healthier.
You're telling me that people would give up on gaming just because they have to pay an extra fee on top of their used game purchase??
Exactly, which is why retail should go away. I'd rather my monies go to the pubs than float around in the retail used market. This half measure DRM stuff trying to appease all parties just makes the situation shitty for everyone.
Probably hoped they'd prop the company up rather than merely break even.
Though weren't sales of them largely consistent with prior entries anyway? Combine with how successful something like Dark Souls seems to be, and it may be a call to not strive for the cinematic/mainstream angle so much, have a more reasonable budget, and make the gameplay more of the focus again.
and that would explain why the vita is generally in the corner in stores
Do you think blu-ray discs are just some HD videos floating on a disc? There's lots of anti-piracy software on their that runs to allow you to play the video.
Blu Rays and DVDs have menu systems which are definitely software. Blu Rays can have web browsers and games. The DRM systems on the disks are also very software like. I get that there is a difference but legally the line has been impossible to draw for a while. I mean, would you call MGS4 a game or a movie? :0 (Thats right! I went there)
The made up evil retail monster has appeared again. I am sorry retail already stocks items that have cheaper E-items like books, movies and music. Also retail under cuts its self every single day. Check out cheapassgamer daily you can basically find a great pre-order deal or sale with in a 2 weeks of basically any game. I seen deals with games The Last of us for around 45 dollars.. Retail is going to cut prices more than MS or Sony ever will.
Well, the other extreme's no good (EVERYONE GETS A BLOCKBUSTER BUDGET), obviously for something like GTAV not only can you blow big bucks on it but you really SHOULD just because it's an open world game that will reliably sells millions upon millions of copies, but I do think the likes of Tomb Raider and Hitman can probably do better at least not blowing the money on getting big actors supplying plenty of VA and not making it highly scripted (though I don't know how scripted the new Hitman even was, but the new Tomb Raider definitely was by most accounts.)I think there's a misconception that cinematic = huge budget. Making a huge, open and intricate game world can also take a lot of money. Spending a lot of money to make games does not necessarily mean wasting it.
I don't want to see self imposed limits on the kinds of games devs can make or pubs are willing to green light. Wouldn't it suck if all our blockbuster movies of today were limited to $50M or so? Some things wouldn't be possible to do and we'd be stuck in the past.
Check out cheapassgamer daily you can basically find a great pre-order deal or sale with in a 2 weeks of basically any game. I seen deals with games The Last of us for around 45 dollars.. Retail is going to cut prices more than MS or Sony ever will.
Prices are elastic, and would stay afloat or drop to meet demand. Steam sales patterns already prove it well enough to maximize revenue. Eventually nearly game will hit the bargain bin or at least come close to it. It's just a matter of time. So I'm not worried about an all digital future in regards to pricing.
Retailers cut prices because publishers, pretty much by rule, overship their software to make their initial shipments look better (because remember, for a publisher a game is sold as soon as the retailer gets the copy). They need the space for the next game that's going to get overshipped, so they clear out the last game.
In other words, publishers themselves are the reason that retailers mark down games so quickly.
What kind of DRM are are you worried about that doesn't requires an internet connection.
So retail is so stupid they buy to much of every single game and have to lose money on them but are smart enough to prevent good digital sale.
You should be if you seen the rip off pricing of both Sony and MS for digital games. They had 8 years to do it right. Guess what they failed miserably. So excuse those of us who see the pattern of both MS and Sony and don't think they will change. I won't listen to the retail excuse either.
The study is bullshit.
GameStop has HUGE operating costs -- they have to pay rent for all their locations, pay for tons of employees, and on top of all of this they still have large profits and margins for their used game business.
Take all the used game transactions that occur, funnel that back into game development, and you'd see healthier publishing conditions that would result in more games being produced, resulting in more competition amongst publishers, resulting in lowered costs for content.
Besides -- I'm not even arguing against BLOCKING used game sales, only allowing publishers to get a KICKBACK from those transactions...in other words, these people selling their games would still be getting money to put towards new games.
I also believe that the vast majority of people that buy used games PRIMARILY buy used games, with new games being the odd exception. Every time I've walked into GameStop someone is either selling their games, or buying a used game. The person buying new is an exception.
Well, the other extreme's no good (EVERYONE GETS A BLOCKBUSTER BUDGET), obviously for something like GTAV not only can you blow big bucks on it but you really SHOULD just because it's an open world game that will reliably sells millions upon millions of copies, but I do think the likes of Tomb Raider and Hitman can probably do better at least not blowing the money on getting big actors supplying plenty of VA and not making it highly scripted (though I don't know how scripted the new Hitman even was, but the new Tomb Raider definitely was by most accounts.)