• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Egg headed man sticks it to Jaffe over used game sales

Alex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,167
0
1,495
DD is going to take an extremely long time to universally adopt. People will not be happy if you flat out take away their physical copies of full priced games, especially after the whole fiasco with the 360's games on demand.

Until you can get people a benefit over retail for buying digital when they're giving up their rights to loan a game to a friend, to resell or to simply have the item on their shelf, then you can really just piss off.

If a shift to DD happened tomorrow, would the prices of games drop to 39.99, would publishers stop selling unlock codes as DLC? Of course they fucking wouldn't. I would be more pitiable with early on used sales if things like unlock codes, wildly overpriced DLC or gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses didn't exist.

For me, I don't care about Gamestop or their 5% off bullshit, I'm more in defense of being able to get a game 8 months down the road that I may have missed, didn't have time for or didn't deem worth 60 dollars for a good price. Often times, I'll buy DLC off my used games, or I'll enjoy a game and buy it's sequel brand new. Buying used is a good option that has more uses than just fucking over the oh-so-battered publisher.

I probably wouldn't be playing console games if I didn't have options like this. If I had to be bilked out 60 bucks + overpriced DLC + unlock codes, which should be fucking illegal to do + forced to preorder everything I had any interest in, I'd be happy sticking to the PC.

Hilariously, DD on PC is also very palatable. Very fair, lots of good deals. I don't think any deals have popped up yet on any console DD except for 360's deal of week bullshit, which is of course also restricted to the also wildly overpriced Xbox Live Gold.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
itsgreen said:
Now why would companies be nice?

You already have bought the game and if they make it impossible for someone else 'to have it', they will either don't play the game or buy it anyway new 100% money for the publisher!

Now I don't know about you but I don't trust MS, Sony, Nintendo, EA and certainly Activision to be nice and think they'll rather choose option #2 and try to lock out as much freedom as they can. 'yeah uhm we need DRM for copy protection and uhm' , while the platform holder will say 'we have to because otherwise we aren't allowed to publish the game'.


If it goes to the point were that happens then we have a major market spiral no one games... and the gen after were using discs again because we hate DD and refuse to use it? K ill take the risk to see the turnout



Edit: Clarification
 
Jun 7, 2004
17,296
1
0
ScOULaris said:
My point is: since used games seem to account for just as many if not more sales than new games (possible because they can be sold, traded in again, and then resold), somehow allowing the devs/publishers to profit from those sales at least to some small extent seems fair to me.

You have to admit, there has never been another retail market that has had this sort of problem, where used copies of merchandise are so readily available that they directly compete with newly released copies of the same products.

Part of the problem is also the consumers: If you want to pay full price for a game and then trade it in a month later for 1/4 of what you paid IN STORE CREDIT, then I clearly can't relate to you. For some reason, gamers are more prone to selling off things that they bought mere weeks or months ago than say book or movie shoppers. Although, MovieStop is trying to change that as well. Damn you Gamestop!
Honestly this is exaggerated bullshit. You will not ever walk into a store on day one and see a used game for sale, unless it's a stolen copy. Just straight up, it doesn't happen. And yes, Gamestop managers who tolerate washing stolen goods *IS* a problem, but it's one that has legal recourse and I'm pretty certain isn't tolerated.

Now, do they give 1/4th the buyback rate two weeks later? No, not really. I traded Street Fighter 4 in way back when. I had owned it for 3 weeks and got sick of it, I got $45 for my trade in. Is that terrible? No. Could I have gotten more on ebay or w/e? No, not really. It was worth the ~maybe~ $5 I lost not to deal with it. Furthermore, Gamestop is the only place where you can unload truly unsellable games. Perfect Darks and Ridge Racers and Sports Shitfest '07. They aren't worth much, but there are occasional promotions where their value increases dramatically.

And the idea that used is more than new is kinda silly. Gamestop reported that their profits were around 45% used and 40% new. Considering how bleak their profit margin is on new compared to used, that means they were moving considerably more new titles.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
Alex said:
DD is going to take an extremely long time to universally adopt. People will not be happy if you flat out take away their physical copies of full priced games, especially after the whole fiasco with the 360's games on demand.

Until you can get people a benefit over retail for buying digital when they're giving up their rights to loan a game to a friend, to resell or to simply have the item on their shelf, then you can really just piss off.

If a shift to DD happened tomorrow, would the prices of games drop to 39.99, would publishers stop selling unlock codes as DLC? Of course they fucking wouldn't. I would be more pitiable with early on used sales if things like unlock codes, wildly overpriced DLC or gamestop exclusive pre-order bonuses didn't exist.

For me, I don't care about Gamestop or their 5% off bullshit, I'm more in defense of being able to get a game 8 months down the road that I may have missed, didn't have time for or didn't deem worth 60 dollars for a good price. Often times, I'll buy DLC off my used games, or I'll enjoy a game and buy it's sequel brand new. Buying used is a good option that has more uses than just fucking over the oh-so-battered publisher.

I probably wouldn't be playing console games if I didn't have options like this. If I had to be bilked out 60 bucks + overpriced DLC + unlock codes, which should be fucking illegal to do + forced to preorder everything I had any interest in, I'd be happy sticking to the PC.

Hilariously, DD on PC is also very palatable. Very fair, lots of good deals. I don't think any deals have popped up yet on any console DD except for 360's deal of week bullshit, which is of course also restricted to the also wildly overpriced Xbox Live Gold.


If my argument has come across as we need DD NOW!! then I'm sorry it isn't what i had intended.
What I'm saying is DEV's should be seeing more money for the games we LOVE to play and they LOVE to make. Maybe something stating the sale of a used game is not allowed for X months after the release?
 

Kintaro

Worships the porcelain goddess
Jun 10, 2004
27,926
0
0
LiquidMetal14 said:
The main and prominent point is that developers deserve a little more.

Why? The developer deserves what they get. They deserve what the game sells or how much they signed for on the dotted line. They have jobs, they get to be creative and do what they like (or don't like) like anyone else. They are not above anybody else.

If they want more, grow some balls like Valve and take matters into their own hands.

One thing is for sure, they will get what they deserve if their DD only utopia is fulfilled. When the ISPs come knocking on the door looking for a cut of the money, the GameStop days will be a fond, loving memory. Same argument applies right? ISP provides the sole means in which you get to sell your goods to your customers. Shouldn't they deserve a nice piece of that pie? Without them, there is no DD utopia. There will be a lot of hands in that cookie jar...
 

Alex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,167
0
1,495
I don't think fully owned devs make money, publishers probably make all the money.

As nice of a thought as it is to assume Blizzard is getting $400,000,000 dollars every quarter for WoW to use on their other games, probably isn't the case.
 
Jun 7, 2004
17,296
1
0
coolclimate said:
Personally I 100% agree with Jaffe, It's not right that gamestop can undercut DEV's and not have to pay anything to do it. I think DD is a great idea. Correct me if im wrong on this but... More Dev money = GREATER possibility of a BETTER product? Game Dev's are human and have family's and shit to feed, as stated by Jaffe, look at the music industry or even PC gaming. Lets be honest, with Cd's not many people ACTUALLY go buy a CD... Limewire much? Now I love gaming, I will GLADLY pay more to see the Dev's get the money. If I go to gamestop and they don't have a new copy, I don't have a new game. Period. I will not ever buy used, never have and I never will. I trade nothing in, if I don't want it then it rots on my shelves or EXAMPLE: friend finally gets ps3, gonna give him MGS4 as a welcome gift. Trade thread for equal value. But with gamestop doing this "undercut and sell" technique on a massive scale, they really are screwing Dev's. Gamestop it growing every day and with it the downfall of sales on quality NEW products



IF money = happy and happy = better mindset which really = willingness to produce

then

Feed a cat enough and it will come back (they make money we get better games with more effort to compete for a BIGGER can of cat food)

That's all well and great, except the publishers would be the ones getting more money.
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
coolclimate said:
If it goes to the point were that happens then we have a major market spiral no one games... and the gen after were using discs again because we hate DD and refuse to use it? K ill take the risk to see the turnout



Edit: Clarification

No, it won't happen...

The problem with it is that 'people vote with their wallet' and it is a 1 directional vote. A fucking dictatorship.

Those companies will call every sell a succes because they don't see the people not buying it.

It is why MS and Sony can get away with selling cat helmets for Avatars or Home.

If 20 million people will say fuck this shit I am not going to pay for that, and 100.000 will buy a cat helmet for their Avatar, MS will say it is doing great. And continue their practice. (even though the good will created by doing it for free will be bigger than the monitary gains they make by asking money)

And as long as Activision is providing me with the crack that is COD I will buy every copy even it is DD only. And they will say it is a succes because X number of people have bought the game, even though even more won't buy it because it is DD.
 

Ceebs

Member
Aug 11, 2006
8,515
0
0
Kintaro said:
Why? The developer deserves what they get. They deserve what the game sells or how much they signed for on the dotted line. They have jobs, they get to be creative and do what they like (or don't like) like anyone else. They are not above anybody else.

If they want more, grow some balls like Valve and take matters into their own hands.

One thing is for sure, they will get what they deserve if their DD only utopia is fulfilled. When the ISPs come knocking on the door looking for a cut of the money, the GameStop days will be a fond, loving memory. Same argument applies right? ISP provides the sole means in which you get to sell your goods to your customers. Shouldn't they deserve a nice piece of that pie? Without them, there is no DD utopia. There will be a lot of hands in that cookie jar...
There will come a point when there will be heavy federal legislation on ISPs and online distribution for this reason. It would be like if the Power Company wanted a cut of your profits for powering the PCs you used to sell your goods.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
All i hear when i see people disagree to the idea of DEV's getting a cut is "i'm a fuckin CEO for gamestop and i want money" As gamers why, if at no problem to the market, would you not want DEV's to see more money for their games? I'm not understanding please tell me what the hell is goin on in your heads?
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
coolclimate said:
All i hear when i see people disagree to the idea of DEV's getting a cut is "i'm a fuckin CEO for gamestop and i want money" As gamers why, if at no problem to the market, would you not want DEV's to see more money for their games? I'm not understanding please tell me what the hell is goin on in your heads?

a) because of the principle behind it, people should be able to resell no matter what
b) no devs don't deserve the money, they got paid at the first sell. If they got a problem renegotiate the first sale price
c) some other good argument

and yes b results in DD and DD are evil in the hands of monopolizing publishers.

And you don't see an painter complaining his old works are resold next to a new painting...
 

Kintaro

Worships the porcelain goddess
Jun 10, 2004
27,926
0
0
Ceebs said:
There will come a point when there will be heavy federal legislation on ISPs and online distribution for this reason. It would be like if the Power Company wanted a cut of your profits for powering the PCs you used to sell your goods.

That's what I believe it will come to as well. Of course, the Power Company charges you on your power usage. Imagine if this DD future occurred and ISPs switched from set payment plans to plans based on pure bandwidth usage or something to get their money from all of this mega bandwidth use. They will show up sooner or later and that fight will be nasty.

Of course, consumers will lose again. =/
 

Tellaerin

Member
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,450
coolclimate said:
.............. thats the point...... Read again :lol

Um, I think people here are more intelligent than you've been giving them credit for. Maybe you need to read other peoples' posts again.

The thing everyone else here but you seems to undrestand is that there's no guarantee that developers will see better budgets or more projects greenlighted if publishers see bigger returns. Sure, that's what they tell us (hell, it's probably what they tell the developers, too), but what do you think they're going to say? 'We're planning to pocket most of it, and maybe a little bit will dribble down into development'? If they said that, they wouldn't have guys like you rushing out to evangelize on behalf of the poor abused publishers, who just want to make better games for everyone but are being held back by the evil tyrant, Gamestop.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
itsgreen said:
a) because of the principle behind it, people should be able to resell no matter what


b) no devs don't deserve the money, they got paid at the first sell. If they got a problem renegotiate the first sale price


c) some other good argument

A:Question: You could still resell were not talking DD right now, just when gamestop undercut DEV's by 5$ the DEV gets a small amount for creating the fuckin ability for gamestop to exist.



B:Question: WHAT THE FUCK?? thats WAY BAD for us


C:Question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
 

Tellaerin

Member
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,450
coolclimate said:
All i hear when i see people disagree to the idea of DEV's getting a cut is "i'm a fuckin CEO for gamestop and i want money" As gamers why, if at no problem to the market, would you not want DEV's to see more money for their games? I'm not understanding please tell me what the hell is goin on in your heads?

The problem is that it's not 'at no problem to the market'. That should be apparent if you actually took the time to read the entire thread and understand what people have been saying, instead of hearing what you want to hear.
 

Alex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,167
0
1,495
Music is a poor analogy. Ignoring price difference and distribution quality, it's an open product, for one, if I buy a new MP3 player or an iPhone or a PC or anything, I can listen to my music on it.

You can't even get decent backwards compatibility for one generation of hardware behind between ONE console manufacturer. Look at the Playstation 3 Slim as a great example.

They don't care if you want to play PS2 games, they want you to buy PS3 games.

Bunch of the Xbox original games I had didn't work on 360.

Wii got it right, but the Wii was nearly the same thing as the Gamecube, but with a 200%+ markup, so I guess it wasn't hard to work off the same hardware type, and that still doesn't let you rip and transfer your old games ala music, movies, etc on PC. You just have less choice with consoles.

You really have very few personal liberties with consoles now that they don't want to rip away or find away to charge you 10 bucks for, until some of that dies down I just don't support the removal of any options for the end user, especially used games.

Sounds to me like Gamestop and their week one undercuts are the problem, but game publishers would just go after Amazon, ebay, end users, rental places, etc. before long.

Look at the early attempts at DD on XBLM with the pricing of games on there. They aren't going to use it to fund better games, or to give you any benefit, it's pure greed.

Jaffe himself might have had a couple of good points, or some noble intentions, but with how things have panned out this generation assuming that publishers DONT just want to drain every cent they can from the end user is a silly view.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pay 4.99 for an extra difficulty mode on Valkyria Chronicles.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
Tellaerin said:
Um, I think people here are more intelligent than you've been giving them credit for. Maybe you need to read other peoples' posts again.

The thing everyone else here but you seems to undrestand is that there's no guarantee that developers will see better budgets or more projects greenlighted if publishers see bigger returns. Sure, that's what they tell us (hell, it's probably what they tell the developers, too), but what do you think they're going to say? 'We're planning to pocket most of it, and maybe a little bit will dribble down into development'? If they said that, they wouldn't have guys like you rushing out to evangelize on behalf of the poor abused publishers, who just want to make better games for everyone but are being held back by the evil tyrant, Gamestop.


I'm an ass QQ
But I have no debate on intelligence so your misinterpreting and thats your own fault, Simply debating Differences in opinion so i can understand what i seem to not be getting
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
coolclimate said:
A:Question: You could still resell were not talking DD right now, just when gamestop undercut DEV's by 5$ the DEV gets a small amount for creating the fuckin ability for gamestop to exist.



B:Question: WHAT THE FUCK?? thats WAY BAD for us


C:Question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

a hey if GS is smart, good for them, if they can get the same product cheaper and sell it at a lower cost, who am I to judge if I can get it 5$ cheaper

it is called competition and basically the whole principle behind our economic world.

b it is, but thats life
c no. they don't make sounds if no one is around.

And btw no use for bold. It isn't like it needed bold.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
Tellaerin said:
Um, I think people here are more intelligent than you've been giving them credit for. Maybe you need to read other peoples' posts again.

The thing everyone else here but you seems to undrestand is that there's no guarantee that developers will see better budgets or more projects greenlighted if publishers see bigger returns. Sure, that's what they tell us (hell, it's probably what they tell the developers, too), but what do you think they're going to say? 'We're planning to pocket most of it, and maybe a little bit will dribble down into development'? If they said that, they wouldn't have guys like you rushing out to evangelize on behalf of the poor abused publishers, who just want to make better games for everyone but are being held back by the evil tyrant, Gamestop.

Lets be logical for a second, If a 1/4 of the money they get off of used sales dribbles in the game... then thats.?..?...? 1/4 MORE THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN

not seeing a problem

enlighten me?
 

Ceebs

Member
Aug 11, 2006
8,515
0
0
Kintaro said:
That's what I believe it will come to as well. Of course, the Power Company charges you on your power usage. Imagine if this DD future occurred and ISPs switched from set payment plans to plans based on pure bandwidth usage or something to get their money from all of this mega bandwidth use. They will show up sooner or later and that fight will be nasty.

Of course, consumers will lose again. =/
It will probably end up as metered usage for the distributors who are serving the content as opposed to the end user, but the end user will end up paying a higher price for the product to make up for extra cost.
 

coolclimate

Banned
Oct 15, 2008
88
0
0
California
profile.myspace.com
itsgreen said:
a hey if GS is smart, good for them, if they can get the same product cheaper and sell it at a lower cost, who am I to judge if I can get it 5$ cheaper

it is called competition and basically the whole principle behind our economic world.

b it is, but thats life
c no. they don't make sounds if no one is around.

Gonna have to agree to disagree I just.. don't agree. I want DEV's to make more money in Hopes that we see game improvement from it.
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
coolclimate said:
Gonna have to agree to disagree I just.. don't agree. I want DEV's to make more money in Hopes that we see game improvement from it.

Yeah it won't happen, games are budgeted if more money comes in. The richer people get, not more people get money.

You will only be paying for the new Lambo's of the top developers within a studio.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Jan 18, 2007
46,795
275
1,580
The Confederate United States of America
So do most people think the devs/pubs get a fair share? If these guys are putting their heart and soul into a product then isn't it their right to demand a more fair playing field at retail? I'm with you guys as a consumer as well but to say that the makers of these expensive games don't deserve a little more is wrong. And not at our expense either, it's the sellers who need to come to a middle ground.
 

Azih

Member
May 31, 2004
19,276
3
0
40
Canada
Opiate said:
How about books?
Cheap, not much room to discount and scupper the new book market. Same for movies and music.

How about firearms?
People don't usually buy new firearms regularly like they do media products, unless they're collectors in which case used resale doesn't apply anyway.

How about houses?
Like firearms don't usually buy new houses regularly *further* they are investments that tend to *appreciate* in value.
How about jewelery?
People don't tend to sell used jewelry too often and when they do they do so for a sheer pawn store type discount that has very little impact on the original market.
How about TVs and other electronics? How about furniture?
Like cars these things depreciate in value like crazy when not bought new and don't leech from the original market because of it.

but they all have similarly designed used markets,
*NO* None of those other markets you mention can support a used market that blatantly and overtly recommends that their consumers not buy the new product and instead purchase used and gives the used product more prominence than the new one in the same store front. Even in car lots the used cars are given much less prestige than new cars and are in fact completely separate departments.

Games are *mass media entertainment* that cost a lot more than other *mass media entertainment* products. They have a lot in common with *software* products like Adobe and Office. They are unique.
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
Anyhow this is how it will happen in the next 10 years

1. DD will increase to eventually take over everything
2. Every game is priced 60$ for eternity with sometimes 10$ discount
3. You won't have an opportunity to share games with friends
4. People will take it for some time
5. Another 10 years later the government will realize the market is being monopolized and orders record fines
6. It will be a little better than it was, but won't be better than it is now.
 

Alex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,167
0
1,495
So do most people think the devs/pubs get a fair share?

Yes.

Publishers will always be about maximizing profits. I don't want to make them sound like the boogey man, but it is a business.

Paying for unlock codes, new difficulty settings, etc, is all very much proof of that.

If they're concerned with outlets like GameStop turning around and cutting into their week one profits, then make some changes with how you sell games to them. Going after the end user, again, and removing more options from them and nickle and diming them more and more is just going to end in bad things.

If DD took over like it did on PC, I'd be all for it as an option. 39.99 games, less charging for DLC shit, awesome sales on bundles, etc.

Will that happen on consoles? ...:lol no. We already have console fans in here trying to give up every freedom we have so executives at Activision can pad their bank accounts a little more.
 

Tellaerin

Member
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,450
coolclimate said:
Lets be logical for a second, If a 1/4 of the money they get off of used sales dribbles in the game... then thats.?..?...? 1/4 MORE THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN

not seeing a problem

enlighten me?

You're not seeing it because you don't want to see it.

I doubt that 25% of the additional revenues would go back into development. I suspect it would be substantially less. Even if there were marginal budget increases, it wouldn't make much of a perceptible difference in the amount or quality of the products we were receiving. The only real differences would be that the publishers would be making more money (which is great if you're the CEO or a shareholder, but pretty much irrelevant otherwise) and that the consumer would be getting reamed to make that possible, since they're the ones being forced to give up the ability to resell the games they've bought.

If you really believe that getting rid of the used game market will lead to some sort of videogaming utopia, then you need to put down that Kool-Aid glass.
 

spwolf

Member
Feb 15, 2007
16,282
0
0
Opiate said:
I also listed c) make different types of games. You don't have to make God of War, you can make Calling All cars. Also, Arcades don't have to operate in exactly the same fashion. You could price them in a variety of ways: for example, you could pay 5 dollars for an hour of play. You could pay 20 dollars to play through the whole game. Who knows? It's the concept I was promoting: a distinct revenue stream outside the "home console 60 dollar purchase" model.

But Digital Distribution definitely is another avenue for publishers to explore. It's also one where -- as you mentioned -- they will run in opposition to retailers, which would force retailers to put pressure on the Publishers, however. My suggestions (Barring arcades) would not incur such wrath.

My list definitely wasn't supposed to be exhaustive.

but publishers dont run the arcades, nor do they run retail stores... They cant bring customers back to arcades (and it is not their job to do that). However, retailers are now forcing them to push DD with this used game situation.

Right now, it is retailers that are ruining the DD by forcing publishers to do higher pricing. I cant see that happening for that much longer.

If Sony goes ahead with their game rental idea, it will be direct blow to the retailers, and I wonder how will that work out for them.... Sony might be waiting for Microsoft to push harder on DD front as well so retailers wont be able to retaliate against everyone.

Another thing to note is that apparently, for PS3 Slim, japanese retailers now get 8% margin... maybe in the future balance will be made so retailers make 15% off PS3 Slim, and in turn DD games are priced $40... Industry is definitely evolving.
 

Kintaro

Worships the porcelain goddess
Jun 10, 2004
27,926
0
0
Alex said:
Sounds to me like Gamestop and their week one undercuts are the problem, but game publishers would just go after Amazon, ebay, end users, rental places, etc. before long.

Here's what chaps my ass. How is it Gamestop's problem exactly? Gamestop can't make used games appear out of thin air. If people come back in 3 days later after they've beat the game or don't care for the game is GameStop or any company supposed to just turn them away? Crazy talk for any business selling used goods right there.

So, if it this happening alot, which people seem to think is it, perhaps developers and publishers should just learn to accept it or...improve their products beyond DLC (because DLC isn't doing it either)? It's hard to guess. One thing is for sure...you don't see it happening often with Nintendo's products. Hmm...

I don't see how its Gamestop's fault for people trading in their game after a short period of time. Perhaps it is simply because games are, usually, a "one and done" product? Shit, with that in mind, this industry is lucky people buy games at all.
 

Xavien

Member
Sep 13, 2006
3,509
0
0
UK
stuburns said:
I really disagree with the non-Jaffe guy.
Jaffe's comments on the second hand market are fairly typical and are even conservative compared to many.

Game prices will be more flexible when retail is gone.

Haha yeah really, take a look at the UK steam store, check out some of the retail games on there, notice something? they are all still at their RRP to buy.

Retail currently sells the same games with a box and manual and dvd for more than 50% less than Steam, including delivery and transport costs.

DD is purely a way for publishers to price fix their games and the entire Industry will suffer for it in the end, less people will be willing to buy games at RRP, publishers are too damn slow when it comes to dropping prices compared to Retail.

DD is seen as a saviour of the Video Game Business, but it could very well be its Opposite.

For example take Street Fighter 4 PC, on Steam its £29.99, on Play.com its £17.99. almost half price and thats a game that came out very recently.

Plus you could argue that the Publisher gets a higher percentage of the money with DD, so they should be charging less than Retail, they don't have to pay for transport or logistics in moving tens of thousands of boxes and yet they charge far more than retail. Ask yourself why.
 
Aug 28, 2008
13,373
6
0
Arguing whether or not a used market should exist is like arguing if free online should be legal.

This isn't like some new thing that has come about and there needs to be a law to stop this, this is something that our economy is based on.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Aug 6, 2004
12,870
0
1,430
I think the current status of the iPhone App store is proving that the theory that digital download would screw the consumer is completely incorrect. On the iPhone store there is an absolutely huge downward pressure on prices and everything is extremely cheap. Of course, the cause of this pressure is much do to the openness of the platform and the design of the store. In contrast with the DSi store, where everything is tightly regulated and releases are doled out in an extremely slow fashion, no downward price pressure has developed. In some future where DD is quite prevalent though I see no reason why the prices on one store couldn't exert price pressure on products from another store. I think we'd see cheaper product everywhere.

The only reasonable argument I have heard in favour of Gamestop's trade in practices is that it allows consumers with less money to access the games market. If there were no trade ins and less people could buy expensive $59.99 games wouldn't the market simply shift to provide the options for cheaper product? Isn't this already happening with the massive surge in popularity of the Nintendo DS with it's cheaper system and cheaper games? I am actually turning around to the idea that with DD, prices would drop severely from the current $59.99 status quo and that so many cheap games these consumers with less available funds would have even greater access to the games market than they do now with Gamestop's trade in market.
 

Briarios

Member
May 18, 2009
4,208
0
0
Tampa, FL
If Jaffe is pissed off now, wait until more libraries start checking out games for free.

Developers forget how much of the new game market is driven by the income people make from used games. Used car market doesn't work? How about used books? Used DVDs? Think trading in used doesn't matter to people buying new? Please ... that's ludicrous.
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
It is simple

If devs want X amount of dollars on every used game sold how would X be divided.

Would (a percentage of) X go to the team that build the game? Because that kind of screws up everybody pro Jaffe's point. There won't be any benefit for us at the end. No new games, no better games. Just better bigger houses and cars for the top devs.

Now would X go to new development? Maybe but would that help? Are they now going to green light projects that wouldn't other wise make it? Most likely no. They look at it from a business perspective 'is this game going to make it's money back?'

Will games be better if they used X? No they won't make bigger teams if it is not needed. The game is on a budget. There is 10 million in budget for the game, that budget won't grow if more money comes in from somewhere else. It doesn't make sense to make a 100hr Halo 8 single player campaign from a business point of view.

Now. The biggest in this whole story is how big should X be. If it is too big, game stop won't make a profit. If gamestop wants to have the same profit they should buy cheaper, if gamestop buys cheaper less games get turned in.

So if X is 10$, not many people will sell their game for 35$ if they paid 60$ yesterday.

If X is 5$ any effect of X would have on the financial gains of the team, greenlighting new games or making greenlit games better, will be insignificant.

So if developers will get for instance 10$ off every used game sold. There won't be a used game section in stores. So they win and we can't get cheap games at a store.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,534
0
0
Xavien said:
Haha yeah really, take a look at the UK steam store, check out some of the retail games on there, notice something? they are all still at their RRP to buy.

Retail currently sells the same games with a box and manual and dvd for more than 50% less than Steam, including delivery and transport costs.

DD is purely a way for publishers to price fix their games and the entire Industry will suffer for it in the end, less people will be willing to buy games at RRP, publishers are too damn slow when it comes to dropping prices compared to Retail.

DD is seen as a saviour of the Video Game Business, but it could very well be its Opposite.

For example take Street Fighter 4 PC, on Steam its £29.99, on Play.com its £17.99. almost half price and thats a game that came out very recently.

Plus you could argue that the Publisher gets a higher percentage of the money with DD, so they should be charging less than Retail, they don't have to pay for transport or logistics in moving tens of thousands of boxes and yet they charge far more than retail. Ask yourself why.
You've completely missed the point.

The games that are at retail, are at the recommended retail price. When they're out of retail, they're notably more fluid in pricing and cheaper. If you look at something like the AppStore, that has no retail compromise, the games are way cheaper than they are on the handhelds. Regardless of the quality. The port of the DS version CivRev is dirt cheap compared to the DS version. Lots of games that would be retail price on the handhelds is way way cheaper on iPhone, because they don't have to compromise anything for the retailers.
 

Xavien

Member
Sep 13, 2006
3,509
0
0
UK
Tiktaalik said:
I think the current status of the iPhone App store is proving that the theory that digital download would screw the consumer is completely incorrect. On the iPhone store there is an absolutely huge downward pressure on prices and everything is extremely cheap. Of course, the cause of this pressure is much do to the openness of the platform and the design of the store. In contrast with the DSi store, where everything is tightly regulated and releases are doled out in an extremely slow fashion, no downward price pressure has developed. In some future where DD is quite prevalent though I see no reason why the prices on one store couldn't exert price pressure on products from another store. I think we'd see cheaper product everywhere.

The only reasonable argument I have heard in favour of Gamestop's trade in practices is that it allows consumers with less money to access the games market. If there were no trade ins and less people could buy expensive $59.99 games wouldn't the market simply shift to provide the options for cheaper product? Isn't this already happening with the massive surge in popularity of the Nintendo DS with it's cheaper system and cheaper games? I am actually turning around to the idea that with DD, prices would drop severely from the current $59.99 status quo and that so many cheap games these consumers with less available funds would have even greater access to the games market than they do now with Gamestop's trade in market.

And yet, Steam's prices prove that the opposite can be true, if publishers have full control over the prices they have no incentive to drop them.

With Retail gone, there is no downward pressure, because publishers are happy about charging RRP to people and knowing there's no other way to buy a game. If that isn't anti-consumer (aka Anti-YOU) then i don't know what is.

stuburns said:
You've completely missed the point.

The games that are at retail, are at the recommended retail price. When they're out of retail, they're notably more fluid in pricing and cheaper. If you look at something like the AppStore, that has no retail compromise, the games are way cheaper than they are on the handhelds. Regardless of the quality. The port of the DS version CivRev is dirt cheap compared to the DS version. Lots of games that would be retail price on the handhelds is way way cheaper on iPhone, because they don't have to compromise anything for the retailers.

Yet your argument is fatally flawed, iPhone games are simplistic in nature compared to most DS games let alone PSP, PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 games.

The App store is cheap because anyone can make a simple game/app and put it on there, if you want a more complex experience there are essentially a very small set of publishers than can give it to you. So there is no downward pressure, because everyone cant make games that are complex as 90% of retail games are.

It would be a price fixing heaven for those publishers.

You really think the reason why games on steam are still at RRP is because of the Retailer? really? I think you underestimate the greediness of the publishers (recently see: Activision and MW2).
 

itsgreen

Member
Mar 28, 2007
6,479
0
1,170
WickedLaharl said:
i think david jaffe is a pretty cool guy. eh tells people to fuck off and doesn't afraid of anything

That doesn't make him right. It isn't cool if you can't defend your point and tell someone to fuck off. It is sad and childish.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,534
0
0
Xavien said:
Yet your argument is fatally flawed, iPhone games are simplistic in nature compared to most DS games
I just told you a DS port is on there at a far lower price. There are plenty of iPhone games that would be full price on PSP and DS.
 

Davidion

Member
Jul 13, 2007
14,931
0
0
I'm kinda wondering why you nutjobs are still arguing when Jaffe himself decided to consider both sides of the argument and refine his viewpoint. :lol
 

daegan

Member
Dec 22, 2004
3,285
0
1,450
36
ScOULaris said:
To me, this is a very serious issue that I fear may end up resulting in an overall loss on our end.

What Les failed to realize is that Jaffe was never against allowing consumers to sell their games. He had a problem with retail stores like Gamestop basically making 80-90% of their profit off of used game sales, and then the developers/publishers that made the damn games don't see a dime of that profit.

I don't think that comparing used music/book sales to used games is valid at this point. Anyone can walk into a Gamestop and see that pretty much everyone buys used if it's available, and it usually is within a week of a game being released. If it wasn't so rampant, it wouldn't be a problem that devs were not getting a cut.

Half of this "problem" is games being too expensive. The other half is a lot of games being crap.

ScOULaris said:
Like Jaffe and countless other industry insiders have stated, a game's success essentially boils down to how well it sells in the first two weeks of its release. After that, used copies rule the roost. This problem is unique to gaming retail, and it further aggravates the risk (and often lack of reward) of publishers putting their weight behind something new and fresh. If you only had two weeks for your unfamiliar game to get noticed amidst a wall of game boxes sporting CGI renders of space marines, would you bankroll three years of development time and cross your fingers? Most likely not. Anyone who has complained about the overall derivative nature of this generation's games would agree: the consumers lose.

Market the game correctly. 90% of publishers don't. Make a game that people will always want to play and people will always want to buy it. Look at the evergreen titles of this generation so far - all the Nintendo DS stuff, Wii Fit/Play/etc, Halo 3, Gears 1, etc etc etc. Look at what happened when Nintendo decided on a whim to run a new ad for Professor Layton and the Curious Village early this summer - the game was GONE from shelves for a few months. Compare this to how quickly Eidos let Tomb Raider Underworld die (new copies for PS3 were gone just a little bit after launch). That's another point actually - most game publishers do not understand the concept of "catalog" sales. The first-parties don't help by encouraging "Greatest Hits" lines. It's okay to keep a title on shelves for $20 even if it DIDN'T sell some arbitrary amount. If I want to go buy a new copy of We <3 Katamari or something, why can't I? Because NamcoBandai doesn't feel like pressing any more of it? That's silly. Ugh.

Publishers are so out of touch with both what customers want and with what devs want that it's ridiculous. The answer is, at the end of the day, to put more power in the hands of the consumers to encourage each other to buy stuff (you see this already with how rapidly games spread through the hardcore XBox Live userbase) instead of relying on a two-month print campaign and a one-month tv campaign if that.
How long did Konami work on MGS4? ...How long did they advertise it?
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Aug 6, 2004
12,870
0
1,430
Xavien said:
And yet, Steam's prices prove that the opposite can be true, if publishers have full control over the prices they have no incentive to drop them.

With Retail gone, there is no downward pressure, because publishers are happy about charging RRP to people and knowing there's no other way to buy a game. If that isn't anti-consumer (aka Anti-YOU) then i don't know what is.

I guess it depends on which publisher since Steam has sales constantly. It's not just Valve properties either. Glancing on there right now there's 50% off all Rebellion titles. It seems like things price drop nicely as well. The original Stalker is now only $20. I think the sequel must have price dropped recently too, as it's only $34. Many Steam titles as well offer 10% off if you pre-buy.

Seems like Steam is pretty damn price competitive.
 

Tellaerin

Member
Jun 10, 2004
9,757
1
1,450
Davidion said:
I'm kinda wondering why you nutjobs are still arguing when Jaffe himself decided to consider both sides of the argument and refine his viewpoint. :lol

Because the issue itself is a bit bigger than what any one person thinks, even if that person happens to be David Jaffe. (Though it's definitely cool that he's trying to take other perspectives into account in response to this thread.) It's something worth debating.