Egg headed man sticks it to Jaffe over used game sales

Steam is PC though, there's a big difference between all of this shit on PC and consoles. A lot of the stuff that goes down on consoles just will not fly on PC. See: gouging people with overpriced DLC.
 
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!
Do you know the reason for that? No other media has as ridiculously low a markup to serve as ridiculously small and niche a customer base as video games. Imagine if a "very popular" dvd only sold 800,000 copies. People use the ability to sell their used games - to stores, to friends, to strangers - to finance the purchase of new games because new games are expensive.
 
stuburns said:
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.
Really, please give me some examples, the majority of games on the app store are simplistic games, any games that come close to being as complex as say Dragon Quest IX?.

Tiktaalik said:
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.
No-where near as good as retail though. Plus before steam came along, publishers used to bundle older games together into a single box for a low price. Steam "sales" are nothing new. Furthermore, the pre-buy discount only further emphasises what's wrong with a Publishers mindset, ever more obsessed with getting larger and larger "Day One" sales.
 
I think the solution to this whole fucked up mess is drop MSRP for new games to $40. You sell more copies new to more people who probably wouldn't have given the game a shot at $60, Gamestop's profit margin is reduced to almost nothing - Once a game hits $40 they're forced to give the customer around $10-15 for it to meet their profit margins incase of a drop to $20/$30, a figure that's far less enticing to the trader than the current ~$30 standard trade in for new releases.

Just keep the $40 price there for a longer amount of time - the game will sell more copies over a longer amount of time, instead of blowing it's load at $60 in 10 days, and then selling virtually nothing until the first price drop in 4-6 months.

I think it'd work. It would really put the screws to gamestop's business model, because it removes a lot of the barriers to trying new $60 product and also the mental image of sitting on a game that could be $30 towards another new release. Getting ~$10 is a whole different perception, and I think it'd keep people hanging onto those games and instead buying new ones outright.

Not to mention gamestop would be offering at most a $5 discount on new releases, and probably less since the aforementioned profit margin is less. Did anyone ever see them pricing used Star Wars: Force Unleashed for $18.99 after that game dropped to $20? Expect a standard $37.99 used price in this scenario. WHAT A DEAL!
 
Xavien said:
Really, please give me some examples, the majority of games on the app store are simplistic games, any games that come close to being as complex as say Dragon Quest IX?.
I gave you one initially and you ignored it, so I shall give you the same one again, and you can go and actually do some research before you post random uneducated nonsense.

Civilization Revolution, launched at $5 on iPhone and standard retail on DS.
 
stuburns said:
I gave you one initially and you ignored it, so I shall give you the same one again, and you can go and actually do some research before you post random uneducated nonsense.

Civilization Revolution, launched at $5 on iPhone and standard retail on DS.
Is that the only example you can cite? I didn't ignore it but expecting a trend based on a single game is rather naive.

Also thank you for the attack, I showed you respect at-least do the same to me.

You're the one trying to prove the point that customers would be better off with DD-only, perhaps you should do some research of your own. I already provided an example which proves my point.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
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.
It's YOUR fault for being a lazy consumer who buys all games at retail price. It's your fault for not spending 5 minutes to find countless deals out there in the retail market. I bought Batman: AA for $40. I bought Mirrors Edge and Dead Space for $20. You're saying the only price you can find at retail is the MSRP. Again, your argument makes absolutely no sense.
 
Xavien said:
Is that the only example you can cite? I didn't ignore it but expecting a trend based on a single game is rather naive.
It's not the only example I can name no, there are plenty of iPhone games that have similar titles for a lot higher prices on the handheld platforms, but as you clearly are ignorant on the subject, I don't intend to be the one to educate you. Do some research. Then you can come back and apologize for being an ignorant moron. I'll await your return.

Mutagenic said:
It's YOUR fault for being a lazy consumer who buys all games at retail price. It's your fault for not spending 5 minutes to find countless deals out there in the retail market. I bought Batman: AA for $40. I bought Mirrors Edge and Dead Space for $20. You're saying the only price you can find at retail is the MSRP. Again, your argument makes absolutely no sense.
You utterly missed the point. They are at the MSRP price to avoid a clash with retail. I never said the only price I could find was the MSRP, I said that's what they are on Steam until they're dead at retail. It's why GT5P is still the MSRP on PSN even though it's cheaper everywhere else. Because until there is an official MSRP price drop, Sony won't piss off retail by reducing it.
 
Civilization Revolution, launched at $5 on iPhone and standard retail on DS.
Examples like this are true, but for original games that are not ports of ports, it's a little more concerning, especially when you already have some poor standards in play.
 
Alex said:
Steam is PC though, there's a big difference between all of this shit on PC and consoles. A lot of the stuff that goes down on consoles just will not fly on PC. See: gouging people with overpriced DLC.
The mass market that's the consoles have succeeded in reaching actually plays into the issue. With a wider market that considerably eclipses that the "traditional hardcore" market, it's more difficult for devs and pubs to design a product that fits in with both their own creative interests but will also draw the consumer's attention for not only the first run though but through further replays.

One of the sparks that lit the flames here, imo.
 
stuburns said:
It's not the only example I can name no, there are plenty of iPhone games that have similar titles for a lot higher prices on the handheld platforms, but as you clearly are ignorant on the subject, I don't intend to be the one to educate you. Do some research. Then you can come back and apologize for being an ignorant moron. I'll await your return.
Personal Attacks now, wow. I guess you have a lot in common with Jaffe eh? If you can't prove a point just attack the guy.

The burden is on you to provide proof that DD-only is better for customers, not me. I already proved that retail is considerably cheaper than DD, for no good reason.
 
Xavien said:
Really, please give me some examples, the majority of games on the app store are simplistic games, any games that come close to being as complex as say Dragon Quest IX?.
This isn't really the interesting part. The interesting part is that games on the iPhone are launching at 9.99 and then within a few months going on sale for 99 cents due to store competition. 90% off sales! Doesn't happen much at Gamestop. Some games even go free eventually.

Yes this is due to the makeup of the store and it's unique to the iPhone, but I don't see any reason why this couldn't occur on other services eventually. It only takes one publisher/developer that is willing to drop their price. It's inevitable that someone will shake up these static services. Already there has been some discussion that Sony's PSPGo service, with PSN Mini games, are giving more flexibility to devs in order to draw more dev support so that they can beat out the DSi store.
 
I have so much to say about this subject, but I won't even mention most of the stuff on my mind. I really don't think a DD only system will be as advantageous to the industry as developers/publishers may think. Imo, I feel that considerably less copies of the game would be sold when people realize that they are paying full price for a non-physical copies that cannot be resold or returned if the consumer does not like it or gets bored of it. I don't see why there can't be retail copies of games with DD versions. Sell the DD versions for less money and even throw in a few little incentives. Right now at this point, As far as companies selling used games go, I don't see it going away anytime soon with companies asking top dollar for everything. Entertainment as expensive as gaming will always have people looking for cheaper options to satisfy their gaming needs whether it's through Gamestop or Ebay. That goes for basically anything. Maybe companies should find a way to give gamers more value for their money. Maybe games should drop their MSRP to something like $40? I know used games will still exist, but I think gamers will be more inclined to buy games new if they were more affordable. $60 for every game, niche and popular can be a little ridiculous for consumers who are interested in more than just mainstream, popular games. If games really do increase in price next generation, expect things to get worst for game companies.
 
Xavien said:
Personal Attacks now, wow. I guess you have a lot in common with Jaffe eh? If you can't prove a point just attack the guy.

The burden is on you to provide proof that DD-only is better for customers, not me. I already proved that retail is considerably cheaper than DD, for no good reason.
No, I gave you a single example, which I consider to be enough to prove your point wrong. Your said, outright that it's not the case, I proved you wrong. I could list more that prove you wrong, but what is the point of that? To reprove my point ten times over? If it's not the case, it's not the case. You've shown blind ignorance, and I don't see why I should indulge you by listing things like RealRacing, Rolando etc. Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I didn't say DD-only is better for customers ever. I said that what we've seen show it'll reduce price and make it more fluid, it's still not going to be anywhere near as good as people have it now with trade-ins etc.
 
Isn't the overarching solution to just make games cheaper in general? It seems to me unless the gaming industry can prove that gaining money back from used sales would in return fund new games and lower the price of day one releases, I would be onboard. Unfortunately all I see happening is just publisher and developers stuffing their wallets and us getting nothing in return. If the cost of game development wasn't so astronomical this wouldn't be an issue.

That said, I don't believe Jaffe is even close to being right on this issue. All it does limit the right to managing my media. And pushing the industry toward a DD only future will only make his dilemma worse once broadband speed raise in the next 10 years. Just look at the music and movie industry. They adapted(itunes, hulu, etc) but piracy is still just as, if not more, rampant then ever.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
stuburns said:
It's not the only example I can name no, there are plenty of iPhone games that have similar titles for a lot higher prices on the handheld platforms, but as you clearly are ignorant on the subject, I don't intend to be the one to educate you. Do some research. Then you can come back and apologize for being an ignorant moron. I'll await your return.


You utterly missed the point. They are at the MSRP price to avoid a clash with retail. I never said the only price I could find was the MSRP, I said that's what they are on Steam until they're dead at retail. It's why GT5P is still the MSRP on PSN even though it's cheaper everywhere else. Because until there is an official MSRP price drop, Sony won't piss off retail by reducing it.
Haha yeah, I would have been able to buy those two games for $20 each digitally in a world without retail. Right. And are you seriously bringing iPhone pricing into this?
 
Mutagenic said:
Haha yeah, I would have been able to buy those two games for $20 each digitally in a world without retail. Right. And are you seriously bringing iPhone pricing into this?
Rolando has more content than Locoroco. RealRacing has more content than any of the PSP racing games I can think of (until GTPSP comes at least). So yeah, you would pay full retail for them.
 
stuburns said:
No, I gave you a single example, which I consider to be enough to prove your point wrong. Your said, outright that it's not the case, I proved you wrong. I could list more that prove you wrong, but what is the point of that? To reprove my point ten times over? If it's not the case, it's not the case. You've shown blind ignorance, and I don't see why I should indulge you by listing things like RealRacing, Rolando etc. Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I didn't say DD-only is better for customers ever. I said that what we've seen show it'll reduce price and make it more fluid, it's still not going to be anywhere near as good as people have it now with trade-ins etc.
You didn't prove me wrong. Civ Rev on the App Store is $10 right? Civ Rev: DS is currently selling for £6.49 (with free delivery) at play.com, essentially the same price, yet you get a physical product with the DS version.
 
Xavien said:
You didn't prove me wrong. Civ Rev on the App Store is $10 right? Civ Rev: DS is currently selling for £6.49 (with free delivery) at play.com, essentially the same price, yet you get a physical product with the DS version.
But they didn't come out on the same day did they? No. It started at $5 on the App Store, which was half the price of the DS game now about a year later? Maybe more.
 
What Jaffe wants is ownership of every copy he "sells", obviously. Otherwise, once his games hit the shelves, they're out of his control. His cut was at first sale.

This is just a push to making better quality games. The better a game is, the more initial sales there will be. In the most pessimistic view, a developer will only make as much money as there are copies of his game being played simultaneously. Of course, with GoW under his belt, god knows why Jaffe is so pissed at Gamestop. It's just capitalism at work.
 
stuburns said:
But they didn't come out on the same day did they? No. It started at $5 on the App Store, which was half the price of the DS game now about a year later? Maybe more.
$5 for 48 hours, then $10. Retail cuts the prices of new games considerably after a few weeks.

Yet, i still proved that retail still beats your iphone games poster child in price; and with a physical product.

App Store is nice don't get me wrong, but applying the same practice to complex, retail games just doesn't work. Publishers get too greedy, retail is there to balance that.
 
I understand what Jaffe is getting at, but I don't agree. Gaming shouldn't be the exception to the rule. I can't think of many industries that operate in the method he's suggesting.

Xavien said:
$5 for 48 hours, then $10. Retail cuts the prices of new games considerably after a few weeks.

Yet, i still proved that retail still beats your iphone games poster child in price; and with a physical product.

App Store is nice don't get me wrong, but applying the same practice to complex, retail games just doesn't work. Publishers get too greedy, retail is there to balance that.
I totally disagree, this was an example of DD being more flexible with it's pricing, and initial low pricing is one part of it. There are more options available. For 48hrs, the game was about half the price of a year old DS version. Brand new.

That's not to say it's 'better', because you can't sell it. I never said DD is preferable, I don't think it is. I don't think it's a great idea, and I'd love it never to go totally DD, but I think it will.
 
Wow, this is really stirring some hornet nests with a baseball bat. I've certainly traded in lots of games in the past, but tended to buy new close to release for the most part.

There's some dubious analogies going on around this discussion:
  • Used Card Market - Car manufacturers make money from parts sales. I've also seen airfields full of cars that are traded in models which they store forever to keep them out of the second hand car market.
  • Music/Books/DVDs - I don't think people even remotely trade these in at the same rate as they do with games, certainly I don't especially with my CDs.

Of course publishers don't like used game sales if they don't make any (or only a small proportion of that from DLC) money from the deal. Especially nowadays where they still have to support the online infrastructure for it. They sell 100,000 copies, but have to support 200,000 players for example, each player costs them some slice of money because of bandwidth and infrastructure. Imagine if this was the reason why Activision have bumped up the cost of Modern Warfare 2 for one moment, justifiably or otherwise.

Already we're seeing things like Dragon Age being bundled with a one time use code for something that otherwise costs X to buy as well, which pretty much eliminates any reasonable price benefit from getting the used copy.

There's also a lot of accusations saying that publishers are going to be the only ones getting more money from this process. But given the push to downloads, publishers could also be cut out of the equation in the same way as we've seen primarily with Apple's store and to a smaller extent the PSN and the XBox Live indie program.

I think that digital delivery is pretty much dead certain to take over at some point, it may end up resulting in different models, like the rumoured microtransaction Gran Turismo. This is something that is already quite common in Eastern regions.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
KScorp said:
What Jaffe wants is ownership of every copy he "sells", obviously. Otherwise, once his games hit the shelves, they're out of his control. His cut was at first sale.

This is just a push to making better quality games. The better a game is, the more initial sales there will be. In the most pessimistic view, a developer will only make as much money as there are copies of his game being played simultaneously. Of course, with GoW under his belt, god knows why Jaffe is so pissed at Gamestop. It's just capitalism at work.
I am not pissed at Gamestop at all. With the exception of some of the things they do I don't care for- stickers all over games I buy- I like the retail experience and alway like shopping at my local Gamestop (Carmel Valley, Ca) as well as the fantastic Gamestop at Universal Citywalk.

I can take serious issue with a particular way they run their business (which I do, the used games stuff) without hating them. In fact, my whole thing is, 'hey, let's find a way to work together on this so we can all benefit'.

David
 
stuburns said:
I understand what Jaffe is getting at, but I don't agree. Gaming shouldn't be the exception to the rule. I can't think of many industries that operate in the method he's suggesting.



I totally disagree, this was an example of DD being more flexible with it's pricing, and initial low pricing is one part of it. There are more options available. For 48hrs, the game was about half the price of a year old DS version. Brand new.

That's not to say it's 'better', because you can't sell it. I never said DD is preferable, I don't think it is. I don't think it's a great idea, and I'd love it never go totally DD, but I think it will.
Glad we finally find something to agree upon, DD-only would be a disaster for consumers and the Industry itself. I couldn't think of a more efficient way to shrink the Industry and yet Publishers are too short-sighted to see.
 
Btw how is this not greed.

Good games sell more = more trade ins, but % less trade ins because the game is good.
ergo: more sold new, relative less second hand

Even if the game doesn't sell well: good game = % less trade ins, and also in absolute numbers less trade ins. So relative more new sold than it would be. And price will drop so people will be less enticed to trade in the game because it's value is lower. = more new sold.

Bad games sell less, so less new sold. Less trade ins, but the game is bad so % more trade ins. Less sold is lower price, lower price is more units sold new. And less trade ins because of it's lower value.

If bad games sell well, the trade ins become higher (and relative) but the dev sold more copies new.

So unless Jaffe doubts his own games. He is either greedy or it isn't his problem.
 
Xavien said:
Glad we finally find something to agree upon, DD-only would be a disaster for consumers and the Industry itself. I couldn't think of a more efficient way to shrink the Industry and yet Publishers are too short-sighted to see.
Seems much too early in the life of DD to be making such strong assertions, especially since the iPhone has appeared on the scene and has introduced the concept of 90% sales. The DD market is still evolving. There is obviously a huge potential for competition in the DD space and the iPhone shows that.

I don't think it's a situation of absolutes. Just as in retail some publishers will consider themselves high end and will rarely cut prices (Blizzard/Nintendo) while others will jump at the opportunity to use sale prices to move product.
 
Azih said:
Games are *mass media entertainment* that cost a lot more than other *mass media entertainment* products.
Which is why the problem is with a publishing industry that thinks their products are worth $60 when all the evidence points to them, by and large, being worth far less to the majority of paying consumers.

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.
The App Store is great and all, but it's really not particularly analogous to the sort of marketplace people are discussing. The App Store has intense downward pressure on price because the fly-by-night nature of the content involved, combined with the fact that successful apps win out almost solely based on their high ranking on the store itself work together to make sure that nothing that costs $2+ can succeed, even if it's worth the asking price.

Digital distribution of what people think of as "full games," with no alternate sale points (because you're operating in a closed system), but with all the marketing apparatus and brand recognition of the current marketplace, would inevitably look very different.
 
davidjaffe said:
In fact, my whole thing is, 'hey, let's find a way to work together on this so we can all benefit'.
Unfortunately, the current model makes that difficult.

If you plan on getting a cut of the used sales profits, then the only one benefiting is you. Gamestop would be losing profit, while customers remain unaffected. Unless Gamestop raises prices to make up for it, in which case customers are negatively affected.

How things are set up now, I don't see any way to make everyone benefit. In fact, if such a way was discovered, it would have been implemented already.
 
charlequin said:
The App Store is great and all, but it's really not particularly analogous to the sort of marketplace people are discussing. The App Store has intense downward pressure on price because the fly-by-night nature of the content involved, combined with the fact that successful apps win out almost solely based on their high ranking on the store itself work together to make sure that nothing that costs $2+ can succeed, even if it's worth the asking price.

Digital distribution of what people think of as "full games," with no alternate sale points (because you're operating in a closed system), but with all the marketing apparatus and brand recognition of the current marketplace, would inevitably look very different.
The App store is simply an example of retail innovation. I don't see any reason why future DD services would not have a wide variety of retail innovations. The consumer reaction will let these succeed or fail. Up to this point PSN and XBLA have largely been similar, with heavily constrained stores but supposing the PSN adopted looser rules, this would force XBLA to react. Sure they could statically remain constant, but eventually, if there is money to be made, someone will notice and take advantage. Look to the Wii how it disrupted the market. It's not all that different.

The thesis that DD will always result in static, high prices hinges on:

a) Digital Download services remaining constant as they exist now.
b) Publishers willing to take high profit from less people.
c) No Publishers willing to seek a low profit, more people business plan.
d) There being absolutely no other forms of entertainment in the world.

I feel a, b and c speak for themselves. Sure publishers could form a cabal and never lower prices ever, but if low income gamers buy less games, eventually someone will notice this and will notice that there is money to be made at a lower tier in the market. If a publisher takes advantage of this then immediately there's a downward pressure on prices.

Option d perhaps requires more explanation. It may surprise some of the the most extreme hardcore gamers on GAF, but many publishers are awfully concerned about not just how they're going to prevent gamers from spending their time playing other publishers' games, but in addition how they're going to keep them gaming at all. The biggest competition to gaming is things like Facebook, Twitter, movies and cheaper forms of entertainment (drinking in a park). If games are not an affordable way to spend a person's time, they'll simply go and spend their time doing something else. For this reason I feel like there will always be at least some downward pressure on prices. There has to be options for everyone.
 
Tiktaalik said:
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.
I don't see what is competitive about Steam's prices. I live in Europe and I wanted to try out Mass Effect just for fucks sake. I went to Steam. It costed around 45 euros. I went to amazon and bought it for like 10 euros, new. A 30 euros difference. We are talking about a game that is almost TWO YEARS OLD.

Stalker costs 20 USD in Steam now? That's an early 2007 title. It costs 9 USD at Amazon through third party retailers, new.

I have nothing against DD or Steam, but I just don't get it when people blindly defend Steam's prices as if they are in a blind crusade against physical copies. They are not competitive in any way unless waiting 1 or 2 days for your copy to arrive or getting your ass up and go to a store is too much for someone.
 
Tiktaalik said:
d) There being absolutely no other forms of entertainment in the world.
For this reason I feel like there will always be at least some downward pressure on prices. There has to be options for everyone.
A good single player console game can net you 10 hours of playtime for $60, and multiplayer portions have the capability of extending that time tremendously. $6 or less an hour? Sounds like going to the movies. Similarly, some people may enjoy the simple games found on the iPod. $5 games often provide plenty of fun when on the go. $10 XBLA games are also entertaining. Certainly not as extensive as their full retail counterparts, but they are games nonetheless.

Gamers will be gamers regardless of what else exists. Gaming is simply another one of the millions of possible entertaining things people can do. Worrying about attracting to gaming in general isn't a problem. Attracting people to individual games are the challenge.
 
I think the game industry has a distorted view of itself. The game devs arent the important people; the customers are. Plain and simple.

Make a good game, make a game worth keeping - and people will buy and keep it.

Make a disposable summer blockbuster with a 6 hour lifespan and see used sales take over. Not everyone wants another multiplayer focussed game.

I think we are seeing a lot of hubris from devs like jaffe and other mouthpieces for the industry. The next step they will be after is government subsidies I assume, bailouts and whatnot.

If devs go digital distro only, I wont buy their games.
 
Gorgon said:
I don't see what is competitive about Steam's prices. I live in Europe and I wanted to try out Mass Effect just for fucks sake. I went to Steam. It costed around 45 euros. I went to amazon and bought it for like 10 euros, new. A 30 euros difference. We are talking about a game that is almost TWO YEARS OLD.

Stalker costs 20 USD in Steam now? That's an early 2007 title. It costs 9 USD at Amazon through third party retailers, new.

I have nothing against DD or Steam, but I just don't get it when people blindly defend Steam's prices as if they are in a blind crusade against physical copies. They are not competitive in any way unless waiting 1 or 2 days for your copy to arrive or getting your ass up and go to a store is too much for someone.
Atleast Steam is trying to (very well) to create a retail experience as it is now.

Can't really say the same thing about the console platform holders...
 
Gorgon said:
I don't see what is competitive about Steam's prices. I live in Europe and I wanted to try out Mass Effect just for fucks sake. I went to Steam. It costed around 45 euros. I went to amazon and bought it for like 10 euros, new. A 30 euros difference. We are talking about a game that is almost TWO YEARS OLD.

Stalker costs 20 USD in Steam now? That's an early 2007 title. It costs 9 USD at Amazon through third party retailers, new.

I have nothing against DD or Steam, but I just don't get it when people blindly defend Steam's prices as if they are in a blind crusade against physical copies. They are not competitive in any way unless waiting 1 or 2 days for your copy to arrive or getting your ass up and go to a store is too much for someone.
True dat, and I fucking luurve Steam.
 

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
If I buy something, it is now my property. It is my right to sell it at a later date, if I want to. Fucking period.

If Jaffe or anyone else doesn't think so, they're a moron. And I like Jaffe.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
GDJustin said:
If I buy something, it is now my property. It is my right to sell it at a later date, if I want to. Fucking period.

If Jaffe or anyone else doesn't think so, they're a moron. And I like Jaffe.
This is the problem with the internet. No matter how clear you make yourself, people simply ignore what you have to say. And so I will now forever be the guy who opposed to used game sales (which I am not).

One day I will learn that it's just not worth saying a damn thing. Which really- to be fair- is the smart way I should be doing things. Let's make a deal Neogaf...right here, right now. Let's see if I can JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP for the next 6 months. No Twitter, no blog. The accounts will stay open cause I wanna go back to it I'm sure. But next time you hear from me will be announce of our game. Deal?

And I promise, the first 3 people who call me on it if I open my mouth in a non-game announce way (or in an official interview way or something official or on our official EAT SLEEP PLAY blog) get a free copy of the game we are making (assuming it goes retail vs. PSN, in which case, I can't get you a freebie).

Deal?

David

ps. and to be clear on this- what I am saying is interviews and press stuff and official EAT SLEEP PLAY biz, I am fine to do. I gotta do that stuff, it's my job. Catching me doing that sort of stuff doesn't get you a free game. Just my personal blog and twitter. Ok, cool. Bye!
 

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
davidjaffe said:
This is the problem with the internet. No matter how clear you make yourself, people simply ignore what you have to say. And so I will now forever be the guy who opposed to used game sales (which I am not).

One day I will learn that it's just not worth saying a damn thing. Which really- to be fair- is the smart way I should be doing things. Let's make a deal Neogaf...right here, right now. Let's see if I can JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP for the next 6 months. No Twitter, no blog. The accounts will stay open cause I wanna go back to it I'm sure. But next time you hear from me will be announce of our game. Deal?

And I promise, the first 3 people who call me on it if I open my mouth in a non-game announce way (or in an official interview way or something official or on our official EAT SLEEP PLAY blog) get a free copy of the game we are making (assuming it goes retail vs. PSN, in which case, I can't get you a freebie).

Deal?

David

ps. and to be clear on this- what I am saying is interviews and press stuff and official EAT SLEEP PLAY biz, I am fine to do. I gotta do that stuff, it's my job. Catching me doing that sort of stuff doesn't get you a free game. Just my personal blog and twitter. Ok, cool. Bye!
If you want GameStop to cut in game pubs on used game revenue on some corp. level, because their gross revenue from used game sales is some incredibly high number, I completely understand.

That's a very different issue than me selling God of War to my buddy for $15 after I'm done with it.

But the problem is if you got what you wanted from GameStop, there's always something else threatening on the horizon. It's like you're choosing to play whack-a-mole instead of figuring out how to eliminate the mole infestation to begin with. Maybe in 3 years there will be a very successful website for users to sell used games in a crowdsourced/P2P way. Or maybe game trading services like http://www.goozex.com will gain traction. Or some other method that publishers can't extract secondary revenue from.

The game publishers that complain about used game sales killing their bottom line are the same ones that charge the same price for digitally-distributed copies of their games, even though they're getting the full $50-60, instead of just the wholesale price, like when they sell to retailers. And gamers are a savvy group... they know and understand this.

So... there's a very finite amount of sympathy, here.
 
GDJustin said:
If you want GameStop to cut in game pubs on used game revenue on some corp. level, because their gross revenue from used game sales is some incredibly high number, I completely understand.

That's a very different issue than me selling God of War to my buddy for $15 after I'm done with it.

But the problem is if you got what you wanted from GameStop, there's always something else threatening on the horizon. It's like you're choosing to play whack-a-mole instead of figuring out how to eliminate the mole infestation to begin with. Maybe in 3 years there will be a very successful website for users to sell used games in a crowdsourced/P2P way. Or maybe game trading services like http://www.goozex.com will gain traction. Or some other method that publishers can't extract secondary revenue from.

The game publishers that complain about used game sales killing their bottom line are the same ones that charge the same price for digitally-distributed copies of their games, even though they're getting the full $50-60, instead of just the wholesale price, like when they sell to retailers. And gamers are a savvy group... they know and understand this.

So... there's a very finite amount of sympathy, here.
I think the ultimate problem in the industry isn't loss of profits via used games sales, as much as its being forced to continue working with a disingenuous partner.

I worked at Gamestop for about a year after moving nearly completely across the country while finding a real job. It wasn't nearly as bad as many people make it out to be overall, but there is a VERY CLEAR message handed down from corporate that if you aren't selling a reserve sell used. If someone wants X game and bring you the new display ask if they want it used. If they say no remind them that buying used saves them money. Push the edge card and tell them how it would save them money on X game used versus X game new. Do the same with systems.

That is the problem here. Publishers bend over backwards to put on extravagant trades shows and pressers for their retail partners. They work dilligently to sell their game to these retail outlets. They're supposed to be their business partners, the interface between them and the consumer. But instead of practicing good faith business a company like Gamestop is actively trying to knee cap the sales their partner sees in order to recycle used merchandise.

That is of course completely within Gamestop's right, and since its where the profit is that is where they're currently headed. But it doesn't mesh well with their business partner's goals so their business partner (all the various publishers) also have the right to look for other alternatives. Just so happens they've found it with digital distribution now.

The longer Gamestop pushes used at the expense of new sales there will be discord between them and a lot of publishers. Those publishers will look to move towards digital distro. End result will be less and less products for Gamestop to try reselling, and more publishers going digital distro for the majority of their catalog.
 

truly101

I got grudge sucked!
I'm in the minority here but I side far more with this Les guy than Jaffe. For a lot of brick and mortar retailers, its hard to be profitable from games when the margins between dealer cost and retail MSRP are so small. The prices are pretty much fixed whereever you go so shopping around is pretty much discouraged. Finding a deal like the Canadian Wal-Mart deal for Batman: AA is rare in games but extremely common in other forms of media, because the retailers have more room to make pricing flexible. You can go to Wal-Mart or Target and look for the best deal on the lastest summer hit now on DVD. You can go to BestBuy and check our the specials they have on new release CDs or new artist promotions where the CDs are only $7.00. You don't see that with games unless its a bomb or excess inventory the store needs to clear out.

I don't see DD being a big solution, not right now because again, I see static pricing and very few sales or bargains. Right now, the games are still priced in impulse territory where $15 is the most common high end. When stuff starts going above that to the 30-40 dollar range (and you're fooling yourself if you don't think the publishers will try that) then there's the potential for sales to plummet for lesser known titles because the customer has no recourse if they buy something they don't like. DD isn't going to be the panacea for the industries ills the way some believe.
 
i like david jaffe but he sounds like a proper twat in the twitter

im guessing he'll apologise and explain his position. he's not some huge ego like a lot of other videogame people
 
Drek said:
As much as that is cutting into possible profits, it's simply another factor devs have to consider. You can't just go around demanding change to a completely legitimate (and highly profitable) business venture. You have to change it yourself.

There may indeed be a "better way" to distribute video games, as Jaffe claims, but there is simply no way it's going to benefit everyone. When someone gets more money, someone loses/spends more. I don't care what direction Jaffe heads personally, but if it negatively affects my pockets, it's going to push me away from purchasing a game.