Support NeoGAF

[mightynine]

This is digital distribution in a nutshell though.

When it's locked in to one console.

 

[Gotchaye]

No, even more devs would just go out of business and even fewer risks would be taken.

...why? The person buying the new copy is planning to resell it. If the game is worth ~$50 to everyone, then he's willing to buy new for $50 more than what he can resell it for. If there are 10,000 people in the used chain, and the very last one is willing to pay $50 for the game, why wouldn't the price of the new game be about $50k? This is all provided that this is the common method of game consumption, which I stipulated. I already had a post explaining why it's problematic if it's only a few people doing this and then a bunch of other people buying new and never trading in.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Thank you. I'm really tired of these "well look at these shitty dlc add-on packs, games don't even have content now" arguments. DLC is a direct result of the way the market is today.

Lets imagine a world where used games don't exist and games are absurdly profitable. In this scenario, do you really think that publishers wouldn't still pursue DLC? You think a CEO would tell her/his shareholders: "Look, I know we could be making more money with these new revenue streams, but we are already making so much that I think we call all agree to let it be."?

Thats just not how companies act or should act for that matter.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The issue with solving revenue imbalances (which is what this is) by trying to extract more $ from perceived losses is there aren't many sources of theoretical loss in the first place, so it's a short term (and imho impossible) plan.

The two most common "pools of infinite money" the industry thinks exists are
1: Used game sales.
2: Lost sales due to piracy.

Ok industry, say you've magically "solved" these losses. If you don't change your financial model you'll hit the same wall but there are no boogeymen left to blame now. What do you do? Whatever you come up with to solve this future issue is also probably what you should be doing now instead of this..

The realistic end result is a crash. That's what I think will end up happening. Used games are a scapegoat. The bigger problem lies in rising development costs, higher expectations from consumers, a thinning userbase due to other forms of devices and entertainment, and a lower expectation of cost due to other market influences. These factors are a recipe for disaster. That's the problem; not used games.

When it's locked in to one console.

Not really. It's any digital distribution store that can shut down in the future. If it does, there's a good chance you'll lose your content. Hell we saw that happen I think last year when Direct2Drive shut down and people lost content. It's one of the primary reasons I resist against any form of digital distribution.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

It didn't fail; it was canceled in the face of philistine protests.

It was cancelled because noone wanted to buy it!

So yes, it did fail. On every level. MS didn't even believe in it enough to be able to convince people what its benefits were. Maybe because there weren't many for consumers?

Microsoft's message was unclear, confused and at times completely misleading and deceptive. It deserved to fail in its previous form. Don't paint the people opposed to its terrible reveal as idiotic baying masses.

 

[frankthurk]

The issue with solving revenue imbalances (which is what this is) by trying to extract more $ from perceived losses is there aren't many sources of theoretical loss in the first place, so it's a short term (and imho impossible) plan.

The two most common "pools of infinite money" the industry thinks exists are
1: Used game sales.
2: Lost sales due to piracy.

Ok industry, say you've magically "solved" these losses. If you don't change your financial model you'll hit the same wall but there are no boogeymen left to blame now. What do you do? Whatever you come up with to solve this future issue is also probably what you should be doing now instead of this..

What you do is make mobile games or other small cheaper "indie" games. Which I have to say it's pretty damn cool that there is a resurgence of these. If it's not feasible then you ditch the 'AAA' game and they cease to be.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It didn't fail; it was canceled in the face of philistine protests.

The Philistine protests started months ago. Microsoft pulled the plug once there were concrete preorder numbers.

 

[Cryolemon]

They kinda do. It's particularly problematic for textbook publishers, and this is why you get new editions every few years that are basically identical except with the problem sets switched around. And this is a major reason for publishers to push Kindle versions of things.

But a typical paperback just isn't expensive enough for the used market to be a huge threat. I can go buy a mass-market paperback for $7, and trade paper for $16. By the time people finish their $30 hardcover and are looking to sell it, the paperback will be available new for, probably, less money.

True. I have heard of it happening with textbooks, definitely.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It's funny to see all the armchair executives here talking about how publishers should get their fiscal houses in order instead of complaining about used games, and then complaining about the measures those publishers take to do exactly that.

You can't have everything. It's just not a sustainable model. Either you get games that don't look so good, don't have so many features, etc. (or perhaps produced by a sweatshop dev in Russia), or you give up used games, or you get your games served with all the extra monetization crap slathered on top.

The armchair executive talk is unnecessary, especially when you say something as silly as above. Now if it was a fictional person demanding everything or a market niche being referred to who knows, but c'mon. Take notes from companies making money on console instead of mobile/social companies making a ton of money that you elected not to name. Estimate the receipts and show some proof. Also these are folks who ironically put out games that don't look good, don't have many features, and enjoy saving money from outsourcing with no shame.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

It didn't fail; it was canceled in the face of philistine protests.

So bitter.

 

[frankthurk]

...why? The person buying the new copy is planning to resell it. If the game is worth ~$50 to everyone, then he's willing to buy new for $50 more than what he can resell it for. If there are 10,000 people in the used chain, and the very last one is willing to pay $50 for the game, why wouldn't the price of the new game be about $50k? This is all provided that this is the common method of game consumption, which I stipulated. I already had a post explaining why it's problematic if it's only a few people doing this and then a bunch of other people buying new and never trading in.

Bzzz, if the game is worth $50 to everyone the first guy will pay $60 for it sell it back for $10 then Gamestop will sell it to each next guy in the chain for $50 or more and buy it back for $10 and so on. This is the problem, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

I understand where the dev is coming from, but buying used is only part of the issue.

Pricing of games is another thing. I would buy more digital games if they were cheaper than retail games. We all know it costs more to print discs, manuals, box covers, shipping, etc vs putting a game a server to serve consumers....but we pay the same price because pubs are scared of the retailer backlash. The incentive to buy a $60 disc that you can resell over a $60 download is huge.

 

[Gotchaye]

Bzzz, if the game is worth $50 to everyone the first guy will pay $60 for it sell it back for $10 then Gamestop will sell it to each next guy in the chain for $50 or more and buy it back for $10 and so on. This is the problem, thanks for pointing it out.

Right. I had a very recent post in this thread about Gamestop extracting surplus being a problem. You didn't stipulate $40 friction in each transaction.

 

[Htown]

Bzzz, if the game is worth $50 to everyone the first guy will pay $60 for it sell it back for $10 then Gamestop will sell it to each next guy in the chain for $50 or more and buy it back for $10 and so on. This is the problem, thanks for pointing it out.

I'm sorry, where is the problem here? I'm not seeing it.

 

[jimi_dini]

When it's locked in to one console.

It happens as soon as you have to get anything approved via online servers. As soon as those are gone, you either got the games locked to specific hardware and that hardware will fail sooner or later (in case of PS3, the actual PS3 doesn't even have to fail - harddrive crashing is enough to lose the games in such case) - or you won't be able to play at all anymore after for example 24 hours in case of the Xbone.

That's why I will never ever buy my games digitally. I don't want to be dependant on the will of some publisher.

 

[Open Source]

So those 10,000 would've all bought a brand-spanking new copy?

Somehow, the industry survived back when video stores did this all the time.

It doesn't have to be 100%. Any number greater than zero results in changes to what gets produced, who stays in business, etc. I think the number is now sufficiently large that it's detrimental to the product that gets offered to consumers - in terms of design that's altered, games and game genres that don't get made, monetization methods that have been implemented, etc.

Used game sales have continually grown as a percentage of total sales. Are you really saying that there is no percentage at which this would be bad for consumers?

 

[frankthurk]

I'm sorry, where is the problem here? I'm not seeing it.

Depends on if you want the people making games to continue making them or not. If no, then there is no problem.

 

[xJavonta]

He's right. I buy new whenever I can, but some games I can't find new at a reasonable price (older games)

If I want a game but don't want to drop $60 on it, I'm fine playing through my backlog until it comes down in price.

Others should do the same if you want to support the industry a little more

Edit: digital should be cheaper though. At most $50 for a digital title.

 

[RedSwirl]

You're right; it's broken. The incentives don't line up well. It's not the consumers' fault. They act in their self-interest just as everyone else does.

That is why I was in favor of a console system where used games do not exist and those incentives aren't there for GameStop, etc. anymore. I am also in favor of other console systems where used games are possible. Let them both exist. Let it play out, and see which one you like best in the end. Choices are nice, and so are experiments where Microsoft is assuming all the risk.

The issue with that though is that if you eliminate used games but still keep games at $60, people will probably just buy fewer games. The only way eliminating used games works is if publishers and console manufacturers lower the price of new games. If they don't, consumers would probably just wait until retailers slashed the prices of new games anyway.

And this is basically how a lot of people operate with Steam. They wait until a game on Steam is at a price they think it's worth. I can tell you right now that at most, I bought 10 percent of my Steam library at $50-$60, because those were the games I thought were worth that price.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The issue with that though is that if you eliminate used games but still keep games at $60, people will probably just buy fewer games. The only way eliminating used games works is if publishers and console manufacturers lower the price of new games. If they don't, consumers would probably just wait until retailers slashed the prices of new games anyway.

And this is basically how a lot of people operate with Steam. They wait until a game on Steam is at a price they think it's worth. I can tell you right now that at most, I bought 10 percent of my Steam library at $50-$60, because those were the games I thought were worth that price.

But we already have that and there's nothing lowering the price can do that will eliminate used games. As long as someone has something tangible to sell and no longer of any use for it, the used market will exist.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Everyone should become germaphobic and then they wouldn't touch that used game case with a 10 foot pole and a hazmat suit. Works for me.

But I don't have much other sympathy for the industry here. Get your house in order without trying to bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Everyone should become germaphobic and then they wouldn't touch that used game case with a 10 foot pole and a hazmat suit. Works for me.

But I don't have much other sympathy for the industry here. Get your house in order without trying to bite the hand that feeds you.

Anyone who says this doesn't understand the problem.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Yes, it's pretty similar, though the amount of content behind the paywall has grown over the years as we've released more paid content.

Here's another hypothetical:

Let's say we're in a system where "used games" are available for our game DLC. And let's say we need to sell 50,000 copies of a table to make it worthwhile (considering profits, opportunity costs, boosts to sales of our other stuff, etc.). And let's say that without resale, we sell 60,000 of our next table, while with resale, we sell 40,000. At this point, we're not going to make any more tables.

Some people are very happy that they're now able to essentially buy the tables at a discount. Other people are unhappy because there aren't any more tables being made. But few are going to associate the ability to resell with the ceased table production. Hell, we might not even know ourselves - all we know is that pinball isn't worth making anymore.

This is what has happened with a lot of games and game types at retail. They failed to justify their costs for whatever reason, and sometimes used games were the difference maker.

Again, I'm not saying used games should be illegal or whatever, only that people should be aware of the consequences of such a system.

People are aware of the consequences because a used market exists for virtually every product in existence and that has been the case since the beginning of commerce. This "problem" is not unique to videogames and it's not something that was forced on the industry overnight.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Everyone should become germaphobic and then they wouldn't touch that used game case with a 10 foot pole and a hazmat suit. Works for me.

But I don't have much other sympathy for the industry here. Get your house in order without trying to bite the hand that feeds you.

Germaphobes wouldn't want to touch new games either though. Those games don't distribute themselves nor do they fly from the loading dock to the shelf.

Yeah, completely agree with your second paragraph though.

 

[Open Source]

The issue with that though is that if you eliminate used games but still keep games at $60, people will probably just buy fewer games. The only way eliminating used games works is if publishers and console manufacturers lower the price of new games. If they don't, consumers would probably just wait until retailers slashed the prices of new games anyway.

And this is basically how a lot of people operate with Steam. They wait until a game on Steam is at a price they think it's worth. I can tell you right now that at most, I bought 10 percent of my Steam library at $50-$60, because those were the games I thought were worth that price.

There's no incentive for publishers to keep games at $60 (at least, not for as long after release) if used games disappear. They would follow incentives and drop prices. Those who kept saying "there's no guarantee they would do that!" simply don't understand that publishers try to do what makes them money, and in this case it's quite a simple calculation.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Germaphobes wouldn't want to touch new games either though. Those games don't distribute themselves nor do they fly from the loading dock to the shelf.

Yeah, completely agree with your second paragraph though.

I wash my hands after removing the plastic wrap and let "out of sight, out of mind" (I didn't see anyone handle the case) take care of the rest. Although it's not unheard of to use clorox wipes on the case, too.

 

[Open Source]

People are aware of the consequences because a used market exists for virtually every product in existence and that has been the case since the beginning of commerce. This "problem" is not unique to videogames and it's not something that was forced on the industry overnight.

Some people are aware. Some people, including many in this thread, just think that as increasing amounts of publisher revenues from new games are lost to used games, nothing will or should change. These people may be shocked at the state of games once we've reached equilibrium again.

 

[Marty Chinn]

People are aware of the consequences because a used market exists for virtually every product in existence and that has been the case since the beginning of commerce. This "problem" is not unique to videogames and it's not something that was forced on the industry overnight.

Actually in some ways it is unique to video games. We can't pretend that video games have the same exact factors as other forms of entertainment. People like to compare games to movies, but movies have multiple forms of revenue that just aren't there for video games.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Anyone who says this doesn't understand the problem.

The "problem" of used games does not affect the consumer, so why should the consumer be the one that has to lose rights to solve the issue? Developers are trying to have their cake & eat it, it is not a compelling argument to claim that games need the budgets they have because consumers demand it whilst simultaneously claiming that they can't make money of said games.

 

[state_vector_collapse]

Perhaps all these whinging devs should take the lead and start passing on a share of any money they make of a house sale etc to the original builders/manufacturers. But we all know there is fuck all chance of that happening.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The "problem" of used games does not affect the consumer, so why should the consumer be the one that has to lose rights to solve the issue? Developers are trying to have their cake & eat it, it is not a compelling argument to claim that games need the budgets they have because consumers demand it whilst simultaneously claiming that they can't make money of said games.

I'm not saying used games are the problem. I'm saying if people are blaming the issues that publishers/developers are having trouble with making money on simply getting their house in order, then they fail to understand what the reasons are that problems are arising.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Actually in some ways it is unique to video games. We can't pretend that video games have the same exact factors as other forms of entertainment. People like to compare games to movies, but movies have multiple forms of revenue that just aren't there for video games.

There is no need for two industries to have the same factors for the consumer right to resell to apply. What do cars and furniture have in common? Appliances and lawn mowers? It's irrelevant.

 

[Opiate]

Well this article seems directly aimed to a certain slice of gamers, that want AAA games and do not much care for iOS or smaller ones.
So in that context it make sense for them to say "If you want more of these, this is how it's going to go down".
The problem is probably in the delusional thought that the slice of gamers that give a shit about AAA games is big enough to be able (or willing) to support it.

But the point is: Yes, there are other areas of the industry that are doing very well, but the people supposed to read this article aren't all that interested in that side of gaming.

I think it would be comparable to people who had become accustomed to the pomp and circumstance of 1 Billion dollar movies, suddenly being asked to scale back down to 200M affairs when the 1 Billion dollar movie market became unsustainable.

My answer is that there is no solution other than scaling back. I want companies to produce 1 Trillion dollar games that are tailored to me personally, but it isn't financially viable so they don't, and that's okay. I think the reason these companies are feeling "stuck" is that they painted themselves in to a corner -- they deliberately fostered a market that has become unsustainable and now can't back out without losing customers who have acquired a taste for those same (unsustainable) productions.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Actually in some ways it is unique to video games. We can't pretend that video games have the same exact factors as other forms of entertainment. People like to compare games to movies, but movies have multiple forms of revenue that just aren't there for video games.

It would probably be a good idea for publishers to create more revenue streams, then.

 

[BlackClouds]

That is why I'm all for DLC, and added content that will leverage users into paying some money to the publishers/developers for their used copy. That's what developers need to do, make online so compelling that the used copy is practically worthless. I think this is more about people not admitting how poor they are, and feel entitled of getting unlimited content for nothing.

Sad state of affairs in America, but every dollar spent on gaming is probably better spent on something else for the most part but people need a fun distraction from everyday life. It's a waste of time trying to convince folks they should support developers, they need to be leveraged. This also benefits gamers because devs are forced to make compelling online and DLC content. A win/win, unless you think the value of the content is worthless. Those that pirate certainly feel that way. Devs should go hard and just show the benefits and strongly assume people will accept the price for the benefits. Ignore the cries of people who aren't paying customers anyways.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

"You should have the choice to play used games, but you should also choose not to"

So sort of like how cigarette packs have giant cancer warning labels? I can deal with that.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

I'm not saying used games are the problem. I'm saying if people are blaming the issues that publishers/developers are having trouble with making money on simply getting their house in order, then they fail to understand what the reasons are that problems are arising.

I would have thought that aiming so many games at the same demographic(one which has shown little signs of being able to support all those games) is a bigger issue, & that would be covered under the "getting their house in order".

 

[Marty Chinn]

There is no need for two industries to have the same factors for the consumer right to resell to apply. What do cars and furniture have in common? Appliances and lawn mowers? It's irrelevant.

I'm not saying we should take away consumer rights or used games. I'm a strong advocate of that. I'm saying that video games as a form of entertainment have unique factors that are putting it into a position that other forms of entertainment that don't encounter which is why it has a unique set of problems that you just can't shrug away with because everyone else is fine.

It would probably be a good idea for publishers to create more revenue streams, then.

They started to do that with DLC, online passes, etc. That's the reason why those things exist. It's also not so simple to create new revenue streams that simply catch on. Let's hear some options on what these other revenue streams can be. Movies have the luxury of initial theatrical debut, after theater distribution such as airlines and hotels, pay TV distribution, physical ownership distribution and in some cases licensing. These avenues aren't applicable or even realistic in the video game industry so I'd like to hear suggestions on what these other revenue streams are.

 

[Opiate]

Actually in some ways it is unique to video games. We can't pretend that video games have the same exact factors as other forms of entertainment. People like to compare games to movies, but movies have multiple forms of revenue that just aren't there for video games.

Who's fault it is it if AAA publishers haven't found a way to diversify their revenue streams? It isn't like diverse revenue streams just plop in to people's laps. Movies did not have trailers at the theares in the 1930s. They did not have a VHS/DVD/Blu Ray market in the 1930s. They didn't have TV licensing deals in the 1930s. They certainly did not have Netflix deals in the 1930s.

They created their diverse revenue streams, then started expanding and growing their business as those diverse revenue streams were established. They did not do what the video game industry is doing, where publishers are growing their production beyond their capability and then saying, "Oh crap, we really need diverse revenue streams!" They are now adding some diversity (DLC, for example), but they clearly started way too late to solve their current problems. That's their fault.

 

[Open Source]

There is no need for two industries to have the same factors for the consumer right to resell to apply. What do cars and furniture have in common? Appliances and lawn mowers? It's irrelevant.

I don't think anyone's saying it should be illegal, only that those rights affect different businesses in different ways and to different degrees. The video game business developed around used games being a very small thing and now it's a very big thing. So you should not expect the products to be the same, either, and blaming publishers for the changes in those products is silly.

 

[inky]

Nevermind.

 

[akira28]

I don't understand how used games can be blamed for the industry failing.
What percentage of new game sales are used games? And then how many trade-ins/sales haven't been put towards new games?

Microsoft is blaming the media for their bad Xbox One public image issues. They say the media formed false impressions and formed bad opinions early. They say it is their own fault, because they should have handled the media better, but we know what they're really saying. The press was the weak link, and they didn't guarantee there would be no bad press.

The industry can't blame themselves. So they will blame anything other than themselves. The only failing they will consider is that they didn't work hard enough to combat used games and piracy and the other problems they blame. They won't consider that they themselves contributed to the issue.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Who's fault it is it if AAA publishers haven't found a way to diversify their revenue streams? It isn't like diverse revenue streams just plop in to people's laps. Movies did not have trailers at the theares in the 1930s. They did not have a VHS/DVD/Blu Ray market in the 1930s. They didn't have TV licensing deals in the 1930s. They certainly did not have Netflix deals in the 1930s.

They created their diverse revenue streams, then started expanding and growing their business as those diverse revenue streams were established. They did not do what the video game industry is doing, where publishers are growing their production beyond their capability and then saying, "Oh crap, we really need diverse revenue streams!" They are now adding some diversity (DLC, for example), but they clearly started way too late to solve their current problems. That's their fault.

Ok, so what are these possible revenue streams? Saying just make new revenue streams is just as bad as saying make cheaper games or get your house in order. They're empty suggestions without any weight. I'd like to hear ideas.

 

[grandjedi6]

Idiotic argument because gamers are probably the audience that buys the least amount of used games. They're the only ones who care about the distinction. As for everyone else, well, the question is more of used or nothing rather than used or new.

 

[frankthurk]

I'm not saying we should take away consumer rights or used games. I'm a strong advocate of that. I'm saying that video games as a form of entertainment have unique factors that are putting it into a position that other forms of entertainment that don't encounter which is why it has a unique set of problems that you just can't shrug away with because everyone else is fine.



They started to do that with DLC, online passes, etc. That's the reason why those things exist. It's also not so simple to create new revenue streams that simply catch on. Let's hear some options on what these other revenue streams can be. Movies have the luxury of initial theatrical debut, after theater distribution such as airlines and hotels, pay TV distribution, physical ownership distribution and in some cases licensing. These avenues aren't applicable or even realistic in the video game industry so I'd like to hear suggestions on what these other revenue streams are.

An interesting path some are trying to take is pushing more and more content and changes (free) post launch to try to maintain players for longer so there is less desire to sell the games back. But it costs extra money to make that content so finding the right balance will be interesting.

 

[Opiate]

Ok, so what are these possible revenue streams? Saying just make new revenue streams is just as bad as saying make cheaper games or get your house in order. They're empty suggestions without any weight. I'd like to hear ideas.

It's not my problem, frankly. It's not easy to make new revenue streams, which is why it took movies decades to come up with them.

But those movie studios didn't grow what we now know as the blockbuster model of movie design until they had those diverse revenue streams. Game publishers grew their productions in to the blockbuster model first and then started looking for revenue streams. It would be like me spending money like a millionaire then afterwards trying to figure out how to become a millionaire to pay for all the stuff I just bought.

Making cheaper games is empty in what way? It's obviously a functional model. Lots and lots of games are succeeding with it. How is that empty? I don't even have to make speculative examples here: that is something that already clearly works.

 

[Open Source]

Who's fault it is it if AAA publishers haven't found a way to diversify their revenue streams? It isn't like diverse revenue streams just plop in to people's laps. Movies did not have trailers at the theares in the 1930s. They did not have a VHS/DVD/Blu Ray market in the 1930s. They didn't have TV licensing deals in the 1930s. They certainly did not have Netflix deals in the 1930s.

They created their diverse revenue streams, then started expanding and growing their business as those diverse revenue streams were established. They did not do what the video game industry is doing, where publishers are growing their production beyond their capability and then saying, "Oh crap, we really need diverse revenue streams!" They are now adding some diversity (DLC, for example), but they clearly started way too late to solve their current problems. That's their fault.

Who the fuck cares whose fault it is?

The point is that games overall get shittier because of things like content being pushed out of the main game to DLC, previously free product updates being pushed to paid DLC, game design being warped and molested to accommodate f2p monetization, overpriced consumables designed to confuse the human mind's sense of value, pay-to-win designed to abuse the innate human desire to achieve goals, etc.

If this is your "solution", you can shove it, thanks. I'd rather give up resale and have real games to play.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Who the fuck cares whose fault it is?

The point is that games overall get shittier because of things like content being pushed out of the main game to DLC, previously free product updates being pushed to paid DLC, game design being warped and molested to accommodate f2p monetization, etc., overpriced consumables designed to confuse the human mind's sense of value, pay-to-win designed to abuse the innate human desire to achieve goals, etc.

If this is your "solution", you can shove it, thanks. I'd rather give up resale and have real games to play.

Oh man, I love that you think that all these greedy practices would just vanish into thin air if used sales are blocked.

Sorry, I need that insurance policy of knowing that if something I pay 80 bucks for is total garbage, I can get rid of it and recoup some of the cost.

The iOS market is rife with f2p 'pay to win' shit and there are no used game sales there.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Who the fuck cares whose fault it is?

The point is that games overall get shittier because of things like content being pushed out of the main game to DLC, previously free product updates being pushed to paid DLC, game design being warped and molested to accommodate f2p monetization, overpriced consumables designed to confuse the human mind's sense of value, pay-to-win designed to abuse the innate human desire to achieve goals, etc.

If this is your "solution", you can shove it, thanks. I'd rather give up resale and have real games to play.

How about just not supporting publishers, or at the very least games that do that shit to begin with?

Stop buying 4 hour romps that have their best features locked out so they can release them three months later (or even day 1!) for $15 a pop.

But then I'm just a selfish entitled bastard spending my money on things I feel are valuable, and the gaming industry's decline falls entirely on my shoulders.

You know I think I can live with that.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

If this is your "solution", you can shove it, thanks. I'd rather give up resale and have real games to play.

Do you honestly think that micro-transactions etc would disappear if used games did? That strikes me as incredibly naive & I don't see anything that would suggest this to be a logical outcome.