• 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

Jul 7, 2007
14,013
0
1,170
I'd rather my money end up in the developers pocket than gamestops. I'm all for devs and publishers wanting a piece of the used game markets pie. I have never bought a used game in my life anyways but...just sayin.
 
Sep 23, 2006
201
0
0
Night_Trekker said:
Hell, who cares about gaming at all if we're living in a magical fantasy world where all our dreams come true?

Yes, but my point is cloud computing isn't some magical fantasy world. ONLIVE is set to go live, and it uses that type of technology.

Think about it. You can buy a console system for less than $50 because you aren't buying all the expensive stuff inside - CPU, memory, etc. You only need a box that connects to a central server. You can buy all your games from there. No need for a high end PC to play the best games. No need to upgrade consoles every few years. That all happens automatically on the other end.

You can also buy games cheaper because there's no physical product, and because there's much wider distribution, so more people can buy games.

It may take a few years before the technology is really great, but your dreams may just come true.
 

Yagharek

Member
Mar 3, 2007
22,786
0
0
Jet Grind Radio! said:
That's the thing though. It's not a risk. You can inspect the disc before purchase, and even then you have a warranty that it will work within 30 days.

Exactly. As much as I dislike them (once worked for EB - same company hence disliking them) they are servicing a desire of customers. Cheaper games and a means to offload unwanted, finished or unliked games.

Publishers or developers dont deserve a second cut from resale - they had their share at first sale. Or are they proposing that all games should be sold at a loss? Hell, why not go balls deep and project how many times a single disc will be resold, then add that figure onto the MSRP! Imagine $50 games that cost the retailer $80 before point of sale mark-down! That will really win them over!
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
Its moot because it can't and won't happen. It simply won't be able to get into legislation. How do you police tiny little second hand shops who deal in games? How do you police those little shops that deal in DC or PS2 games where the publisher has folded?

Its ridiculous to even suggest anything like this happening because it simply - can't - happen.

If Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony wanted to do something about this, they would approach the Government and apply for a exception to anti-trust legislation and then put in a joint bid to buy Gamestop, EB, and all the major chains.
 
Sep 23, 2006
201
0
0
RandomVince said:
So basically step 3 is "fuck over the customer" with death by a thousand paper cuts? Why not make every component of the start menu an unlockable by 99c microtransactions ... oh, but its happening already.

The problem here is that people in this thread and on message boards all over the place are saying the problem lies not with the devs or publishers, but with the customers and the stores giving them what they want. That's why you have people defending ridiculous comments by jaffe as quoted in the blog, and calling the other guy an egghead.

Book publishers deal with parallel imports, used sales, shit market conditions etc and yet somehow they manage to survive and thrive. Or at least the market does because people want to buy books. But it seems the gaming industry is developmentally challenged because there are a lot of vocal elements within it that wish to be openly hostile towards the people paying their paychecks. Customers are number one.

OK, how about thinking about the positive side to this? You assume that publishers will deliberately sell a lesser game, and then try to make you buy more of the game to nickel and dime you. I love all the additional level packs I can buy, like in COD. These are all new levels. Not ones that had to be unlocked. And there's lots of other games where you can get download packs for free, like in Ghost Recon. Think of the positive, matey!
 
RandomVince said:
Exactly. As much as I dislike them (once worked for EB - same company hence disliking them) they are servicing a desire of customers. Cheaper games and a means to offload unwanted, finished or unliked games.

Publishers or developers dont deserve a second cut from resale - they had their share at first sale. Or are they proposing that all games should be sold at a loss? Hell, why not go balls deep and project how many times a single disc will be resold, then add that figure onto the MSRP! Imagine $50 games that cost the retailer $80 before point of sale mark-down! That will really win them over!
I used to work for the evil company as well. And as much as I dislike them, people give them hate so much disdirected hate.
 

Night_Trekker

Member
Jan 27, 2005
17,174
2
1,465
38
South Carolina
John Master Lee said:
Yes, but my point is cloud computing isn't some magical fantasy world. ONLIVE is set to go live, and it uses that type of technology.

Think about it. You can buy a console system for less than $50 because you aren't buying all the expensive stuff inside - CPU, memory, etc. You only need a box that connects to a central server. You can buy all your games from there. No need for a high end PC to play the best games. No need to upgrade consoles every few years. That all happens automatically on the other end.

You can also buy games cheaper because there's no physical product, and because there's much wider distribution, so more people can buy games.

It make take a few years before the technology is really great, but your dreams may just come true.

The "magical fantasy" comes in where you think game prices will fall dramatically because there's no physical product. The market value of a game will be as high as gamers are willing to pay for it. The publishers are not looking for a reason to drop prices out of the goodness of their hearts.
 

Yagharek

Member
Mar 3, 2007
22,786
0
0
John Master Lee said:
OK, how about thinking about the positive side to this? You assume that publishers will deliberately sell a lesser game, and then try to make you buy more of the game to nickel and dime you. I love all the additional level packs I can buy, like in COD. These are all new levels. Not ones that had to be unlocked. And there's lots of other games where you can get download packs for free, like in Ghost Recon. Think of the positive, matey!


There have been more downsides to it than I can think of, and most of them are cynical cash-ins that dont deserve money. I wont list them but you could easily guess. The few good examples are thin on the ground in console gaming circles.

When Capcom, Activision, Scamco, Sony, Microsoft, EA and Sega are all holding back content until release day/week for DLC - you know it wont get better in your proposed model.
 
Oct 11, 2007
180
0
0
I don't see game developers buying back their games and trying to sell them. Seems like he wants all the joys and rewards without any of the work needed. Wake me up Dave when the PSN allows us to sell our old downloaded games. Go ask your friends at Sony how much it would cost to develop, store, maintain, and distribute such a service. Then ask them how much would be left for you after a transaction. GS profit on used game sales is caused by two things. Fing over the people selling them and making it an efficient process nation wide. None of which has to do with you. Developers should just stick to what they know best and just make games. If you can't earn a living doing it, well you just going to have to find something else.
 
Sep 23, 2006
201
0
0
Night_Trekker said:
The "magical fantasy" comes in where you think game prices will fall dramatically because there's no physical product. The market value of a game will be as high as gamers are willing to pay for it. The publishers are not looking for a reason to drop prices out of the goodness of their hearts.

The price drop happens mostly because of a number of things I raised, like having to only develop for one console, much wider distribution, and being able to add on new content relatively easily. It's a fallacy to think that publishers want to keep prices high. They want to keep prices at the optimal point for optimal revenue generation. If selling a game at $40 can double the sales, you can be sure they would try to do so. The only reason they can't is because of inefficiencies in the marketplace.
 

Yagharek

Member
Mar 3, 2007
22,786
0
0
As a point of order, thought bleedingly obvious: publishers are equally entitled to sell games at a price they want to as retailers are entitled to sell used games at their own discretion. And customers are entitled to buy at whatever price they deem a game is worth it.

As soon as someone tries to interfere with those rights by shifting the balance in their exclusive favour, they risk losing all goodwill.
 

mbnmac

Neo Member
Oct 26, 2007
140
0
0
DD won't really be feasible in many countries until uncapped broadband becomes the norm.
It may shock many of you, but in some parts of the world we're limited to 5GB on a standard internet connection, and you have to pay for more.
If I had to get games purely through DD I'd be using 1/3 to 1/2 of my monthly cap, which means I'll have to pay EVEN MORE to be able to do this.

Anybody who thinks DD will be the sole way of obtaining games in the near future needs to look outside their own world where it's totally possible.

I just don't think it'll happen 100% for a long time, but then, I do hope it does someday
 
Sep 23, 2006
201
0
0
RandomVince said:
There have been more downsides to it than I can think of, and most of them are cynical cash-ins that dont deserve money. I wont list them but you could easily guess. The few good examples are thin on the ground in console gaming circles.

When Capcom, Activision, Scamco, Sony, Microsoft, EA and Sega are all holding back content until release day/week for DLC - you know it wont get better in your proposed model.

Funny, when I think about it, I feel like there's been more positive things that have come from DLC! I love the fact that so many new things come my way via Xbox Live.

I won't disagree that there's lots of crappy DLC out there. But I'm a big believer in the free market, and in this day and age of lightning communication over the internet, if a company is trying to rip people off, word spreads quickly. And while you can try to rip people off once to often, it will sink you.

On an aside, I actually think most of the issues with DLC today have to do with publishers testing out different possibilities, than actually trying to rip people off, ie. horse armor, unlocking uniforms already in the game, etc.
 

Yagharek

Member
Mar 3, 2007
22,786
0
0
The positives arent DLC though for the most part. The positives are full dowloadable titles on XBLA/PSN/Wiiware rather than map packs and the like. Something fairly priced with heaps of content like World of goo, Pixeljunk Monsters or Braid. That stuff is fine. Versus modes, unlock keys and map packs for $12 are not.
 
Sep 23, 2006
201
0
0
mbnmac said:
DD won't really be feasible in many countries until uncapped broadband becomes the norm.
It may shock many of you, but in some parts of the world we're limited to 5GB on a standard internet connection, and you have to pay for more.
If I had to get games purely through DD I'd be using 1/3 to 1/2 of my monthly cap, which means I'll have to pay EVEN MORE to be able to do this.

Anybody who thinks DD will be the sole way of obtaining games in the near future needs to look outside their own world where it's totally possible.

I just don't think it'll happen 100% for a long time, but then, I do hope it does someday

I was actually more shocked to find out how slow we have it in the US, compared to some parts of the world. Apparently S Korea is 15 years ahead of us when it comes to internet speeds...

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2009/08/24/daily20.html

Actually, your problem doesn't seem to be with the speed of your connection, it has to do with the pricing model they use, which is to cap you at 5G. That sucks.
 

arstal

Whine Whine FADC Troll
Oct 13, 2008
4,943
1
0
John Master Lee said:
The price drop happens mostly because of a number of things I raised, like having to only develop for one console, much wider distribution, and being able to add on new content relatively easily. It's a fallacy to think that publishers want to keep prices high. They want to keep prices at the optimal point for optimal revenue generation. If selling a game at $40 can double the sales, you can be sure they would try to do so. The only reason they can't is because of inefficiencies in the marketplace.

What's going to keep companies from keeping the savings for themselves and not passing them on to the customer? Games tend to be inelastic in demand, especially for the people posting on here.
 

Vyer

Member
May 21, 2006
18,551
0
1,205
TX
It amazes me that devs and publishers don't at least consider the harm that killing the used game biz would do to the industry.

Also, Jaffe's reaction in the OP is unfortunate. The egg headed dude wasn't getting personal but because he had counterpoints and was frustrating Jaffe he gets called an asshole, etc. etc.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Jun 18, 2005
12,706
0
0
48
Las Vegas
Used games again? Sigh...

Anyone who is against used game sales is a hypocrit. End of story. Unless that person has never borrowed or lent a game, movie, book, or anything else, never bought or sold anything used, never rented anything, never played a game at a friend's house, never given away a game...and so on.

Anything you buy, you have the right to sell, or loan, or give away. And anything you make and sell is no longer yours. That's the law (and common sense) and no amount of whining by game publishers is going to change it, not even the bullshit EULA text they stuff in their games. If they think digital distribution is the solution to this "problem", they should shut up and do it, and stop acting as if they're being victimized by the largest new game retailer in the world.

I must admit, though, the ridiculous implication that publishers will give Gamestop a cut of DD later if they get a cut of used game sales now made me laugh. That would be something to see.
 

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
11,035
2,334
1,660
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
A little off topic, but for some reason I find it somewhat comical that some of the same companies against used games sales and rentals are the same ones who are for nickel and diming us for DLC such as costume colors, new outfits, unlocking content, maps, themes, characters, etc. Also, they charge top dollar for their games no matter or great, shallow or crappy they are. You release an average to bad, 4 to 5 hour game for $60 and then get upset when gamers who want to experience it go out and rent it or purchase it used. Imo, there is no reason collector's editions should ever get to $80 and beyond unless they are really packing in worthwhile extras. They also love to hold content back on discs just to charge you for it later. Some DLC is justifiable if executed properly, but imo I think the majority of it is overpriced and should be on the disc in the first place. It isn't like these companies are innocent and gamers are trying to take advantage of them. Yes, I know they are businesses and they have to make profit, but some of their methods I feel are unnecessary and detrimental to the industry. It seems like quite a few companies literally take advantage of gamers every chance they can IMO and then they get upset when gamers look for alternative methods for their gaming needs. In the end, the choice is up to the consumer, but it is ashamed that we now have to pay for things that were once free. How about some consumers confront game companies about some of their practices?
 

RubberJohnny

Banned
Mar 4, 2007
3,178
0
0
UK
Just going through the first few pages and I'm amazed how many times the Les guy gets called an arsehole when he was nothing but civil throughout.

Oddly enough, there's lots of Sony avatars doing the namecalling.
 

RobbieNick

Junior Member
Jun 8, 2007
4,684
0
0
Did someone say..."egg headed"?:D

Fact is, on my end if I couldn't trade in games, I'd buy a lot less NEW ones! GameStop recently offered an extra 25% trade-in credit towards the purchase of Batman:AA. That's what helped me buy the collectors edition. I buy more NEW games because I can trade in my old ones. Otherwise, I'd rent or wait for a price drop.

Another fact, "If I pay less, I buy more." Simple as that.

Seems to me, Gamestop buys just as much if not more new games to sell as Wal-Mart or Target. In fact, they push the sales of new games. I know when I worked there, I was really pressured to sell pre-orders.

Also, not too many people I know trade used for used. Like me, they usually trade for new games. The difference between used and new on newer games is too small a margin for me to bother with. Any used games I buy tend to be older titles that are around $20 or less. More than half of those games are not on stores shelves anymore anyway.

As far as DD goes, I used to be all for it, but now, it scares me. Why? The prices are not lower, they're higher!! How come so many Arcade and DD titles don't change price with age? X-Box 360 Direct Download games tend to be priced higher than what you can find them at in stores!! This goes for Pop-Cap games as well. They tend to be half the price on disk than they are online. It's insane!! I'm not getting a disk or manual, why would I have to pay more?!!
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Jul 15, 2005
8,905
0
0
Wellington, NZ
www.pikpok.com
RobbieNick said:
As far as DD goes, I used to be all for it, but now, it scares me. Why? The prices are not lower, they're higher!! How come so many Arcade and DD titles don't change price with age? X-Box 360 Direct Download games tend to be priced higher than what you can find them at in stores!! This goes for Pop-Cap games as well. They tend to be half the price on disk than they are online. It's insane!! I'm not getting a disk or manual, why would I have to pay more?!!

Prices of DD games which are also available at retail are usually held at or higher than retail prices because of pressure from retailers.
 

Drek

Member
Jun 10, 2004
6,725
0
0
KScorp 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.
Its got nothing to do with cutting into profits.

Pawn shops do it and that technically cuts into profits. Goozex does it. Ebay does it. Friends just casually swapping or lending games does it. None of those are what have the games industry riled up at this point.

I'm sure some executives believe that all used game resales effectively "steal" from them. But the vast majority of this animosity towards Gamestop's used game reselling is less about the fact that a game is getting resold and more about the fact that Gamestop actively discourages new sales to push used sales.

I know the argument that every used game resale being a loss of a new game sale is a fallacy, but for Gamestop it might not be so far off. And this is supposed to be a business partner for the publishers who's products they actively work to NOT sell. Its a full court press in a "properly" run gamestop to push the used product over the new product.

What Jaffe and other developers with this problem are basically saying is that as long as Gamestop actively discourages anything short of day one sales on their new products they are intentionally hurting their supposed business partner. Said business partner has resisted widespread digital distro in order to not have a major impact on Gamestop's bottom line. So if Gamestop is going to keep hurting their bottom line by pushing used over new then why should they continue to protect Gamestop's and slow the advent of digital distro?

There is no reason, short of Gamestop no longer actively pushing used over new (which will lose them a ton of money) or giving developers a royalty on new game sales (which will also lose them a ton of money). Gamestop will never do either one of those, so digital distro will become more and more common with each passing year until about 5 to 10 years time all content will be available via digital distro and Gamestop will see a massive negative blow back from the parasitic relationship they now are holding publishers to.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
Sounds like that guy wanted to be a dick for the sole purpose of being a dick. He even pretty much admits it.

Anyways, Jaffe's right, he's wrong, and a douche to boot.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Oct 24, 2007
49,169
0
1,010
hauton said:
Sounds like that guy wanted to be a dick for the sole purpose of being a dick. He even pretty much admits it.

Anyways, Jaffe's right, he's wrong, and a douche to boot.

How was he being a dick? Because he had a logical argument and called out Jaffe decisively on his bullshit?
 

Walshicus

Member
Aug 10, 2007
16,892
1
0
36
Eng, EU
HK-47 said:
How was he being a dick? Because he had a logical argument and called out Jaffe decisively on his bullshit?
I didn't want to say anything, because as someone who isn't ashamed of his preference for Microsoft products I didn't think it would add anything to the discussion... but I would love to see which lines in the OP that people are reading in order to judge the Egg-Guy as an arsehole, rather than Jaffe. Just a couple of highlights would do.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
I feel like Jaffe is a funny guy, but no part of his argument made sense. Its a shame because he is an effective spokesperson and a more-than-decent game designer. But game companies need to get out of the horseshoe business; the railroad is coming.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
What argument?

Les: @djaffe What you say is a possibility. If it comes to pass then I may stop being a game consumer.

Les: If enough others do the same then Devs still lose.
He started off by threatening Jaffe that he and everyone else will boycott games if DD comes to pass. So much for Jaffe doing the threatening.

Jaffe: Ah well, c’est la vie. If not being able to sell games keeps you from playing, don’t let door hit u on way out….
Then Jaffe says he doesn't givvafuck. Which in all honesty he probably doesn't. Seriously, he doesn't care if some guy on Twitter won't buy his games anymore.

Les: I see the big picture just fine. I see is a dev who wants to limit people’s freedom to resell stuff they no longer have a use for
Egghead tries to stuff the wrong argument in Jaffe's mouth, that he's against consumers reselling.

Jaffe: then u do not see big pic. I am always customer first. Resell all u like, I support it. I am saying stores need to cut in pubs
Jaffe calls him out on it, raises his real argument... and Egghead promptly ignores it.

Jaffe even tries to mend the fences at one point

Jaffe: I took your tone and attitude as rude, yes. If it was not meant to be, then I apologize. hard 2 tell at times on twitter.

Les: I think it’s pretty rude to try and blackmail retailers, which is essentially the argument you’re putting forth. Pay up, or else.

Les: Well, this has been very eye opening. I see you in a different light now. At least it’ll make for a good blog post.
And Egghead ignores it, accuses him of blackmail again, and pretty much reveals his intentions = incindieary material for his blog

I mean sure, he provides arguments... but it's in the blog post, after the fact.
 

PJV3

Member
Jan 26, 2009
10,871
5
0
London
The only fair way to go would be to cut say $15 from the price of a new game.
When you insert the game in a console charge $5 to activate for that user.
Everyone gets it cheaper,gamestores can keep selling used games,and devs get $5 everytime it gets resold.

Or am i missing something obvious(Not a buisnessman).
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
PJV3 said:
The only fair way to go would be to cut say $15 from the price of a new game.
When you insert the game in a console charge $5 to activate for that user.
Everyone gets it cheaper,gamestores can keep selling used games,and devs get $5 everytime it gets resold.

Or am i missing something obvious(Not a buisnessman).

Its not a bad idea per se, its just that the majority of people don't connect their game consoles to their network.
 

rainking187

Member
Dec 19, 2007
8,424
0
800
hauton said:
What argument?


He started off by threatening Jaffe that he and everyone else will boycott games if DD comes to pass. So much for Jaffe doing the threatening.


How about reading Jaffe's comments that started this?

But if Gamestop wants games to sell they need to play ball w/game pubs or soon the shoe will be on the other foot. Better to get in bed together now or be pushed out of business sooner than later.


Just like the guy said, "Give us a cut of your profits or we'll run you out of business."
 

Zenith

Banned
Feb 17, 2006
12,579
1
0
davidjaffe said:
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

"Either cut game makers in on used games and rentals or suck down digital distribution."

"I think it’s pretty rude to resell a game I worked on with 0% degradation between used and new and not cut me in on the deal."

Yes, you're really extending the olive branch to them.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
12,688
7,742
1,365
The industry's problem is not with the principle of used games, its the way large retailers have chosen to monetize that market without giving due concern to the impact it has upon the sales of new titles.

That's it in a nutshell.

You may disagree, but its hard not to feel aggrieved when you see retailers making more profit from recycling old titles than you are making per unit off a new multi-million dollar development.

Its understandable that most gamers don't really care to whom their money eventually goes - if the price is right you take the deal, that's a no-brainer - but unfortunately it does matter if you're the one taking all the risk on the up-front costs of making the product.

Widespread used-games sales shortens the viable shelf-life of "new" product - the only product that developers and publishers make money from. It makes the whole enterprise more risky and discourages future investment.

The reality is there are far fewer publishers active today than there were 10 years ago, which should give some indication that things are seriously wrong considering the way the games "business" as a whole has expended over that period.
 

Gorgon

Member
Dec 7, 2008
2,398
7
870
Finland
hauton said:
Jaffe calls him out on it, raises his real argument... and Egghead promptly ignores it.

But he's real argument is pointless. This all boils down to the fact that pubs see retailers like GS making significant money from the buying and selling of used games and they simply wnat a cut from that profit.

Jaffe doesn't care about you seeling a game on e-bay because you as a single person won't be making a shit load of profits compared to a company. When pubs see a sizeable company making those profits they want in. But in the end there's no difference in principle. What retailers are doing is perfectely legal and hardly morably questionable. People sell because they want. People buy used because they want. Pubs see a lot of profits and try to come up with moral reasons why they should get a piece of the pie, but they have ultimately no right to it.

Like everyone else I want pubs to make money. I want a healthy industry. I SYMPATHIZE with the Pubs arguments. However I also understand that the used market brings needed reveniew to retailers and they have the legal right to it too.

It's a free merket out there. You can't praise capitalism and free markets and "God bless America, land of the free and opportunity" and then start crying when someone taps a market, makes money legally, and you want a cut in it.

If DD is the way, be free to do so. Just don't whine and cry beacuse someone else is making money legally and honestly. This is like that story about the nice guy from your work that stops beying a "nice guy" just because his payment check is now bigger than yours and you don't like it.
 

Gorgon

Member
Dec 7, 2008
2,398
7
870
Finland
Clear said:
The industry's problem is not with the principle of used games, its the way large retailers have chosen to monetize that market without giving due concern to the impact it has upon the sales of new titles.

That's it in a nutshell.

You may disagree, but its hard not to feel aggrieved when you see retailers making more profit from recycling old titles than you are making per unit off a new multi-million dollar development.

Its understandable that most gamers don't really care to whom their money eventually goes - if the price is right you take the deal, that's a no-brainer - but unfortunately it does matter if you're the one taking all the risk on the up-front costs of making the product.

Widespread used-games sales shortens the viable shelf-life of "new" product - the only product that developers and publishers make money from. It makes the whole enterprise more risky and discourages future investment.

The reality is there are far fewer publishers active today than there were 10 years ago, which should give some indication that things are seriously wrong considering the way the games "business" as a whole has expended over that period.

I understand all that but this is a matter of principle. It would be nice if something could be worked out and everyone could win, but there's a difference between "it would be nice" and "I have the moral right to force retailers to give me a piece of the pie". Pubs DON'T have that right, morally or legally.

If for some crazy reason I start a business selling used toilets and people start buying like mad the original producer doesn't have the right to force me to give him a cut just because someone else is now taking a dump on a product he originally produced and sold to me, no matter how much money I'm making. And this is the basic problem here, a matter of principle.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
rainking187 said:
How about reading Jaffe's comments that started this?




Just like the guy said, "Give us a cut of your profits or we'll run you out of business."
you don't get my point

egghead just went in being inflammatory towards jaffe

he never gave jaffe any of the paragraphs worth of argument he has on this topic

he saved it for the blogpost after where he could put himself in the finest light

Gorgon said:
But he's real argument is pointless. This all boils down to the fact that pubs see retailers like GS making significant money from the buying and selling of used games and they simply wnat a cut from that profit.

Jaffe doesn't care about you seeling a game on e-bay because you as a single person won't be making a shit load of profits compared to a company. When pubs see a sizeable company making those profits they want in. But in the end there's no difference in principle. What retailers are doing is perfectely legal and hardly morably questionable. People sell because they want. People buy used because they want. Pubs see a lot of profits and try to come up with moral reasons why they should get a piece of the pie, but they have ultimately no right to it.

Like everyone else I want pubs to make money. I want a healthy industry. I SYMPATHIZE with the Pubs arguments. However I also understand that the used market brings needed reveniew to retailers and they have the legal right to it too.

It's a free merket out there. You can't praise capitalism and free markets and "God bless America, land of the free and opportunity" and then start crying when someone taps a market, makes money legally, and you want a cut in it.

If DD is the way, be free to do so. Just don't whine and cry beacuse someone else is making money legally and honestly. This is like that story about the nice guy from your work that stops beying a "nice guy" just because his payment check is now bigger than yours and you don't like it.
who cares if his argument is pointless - i'm saying egghead didn't bother to refute it and went straight for the "well nya im not gonna be ur customer no more"
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 31, 2006
17,538
0
0
Drek said:
Its got nothing to do with cutting into profits.

Pawn shops do it and that technically cuts into profits. Goozex does it. Ebay does it. Friends just casually swapping or lending games does it. None of those are what have the games industry riled up at this point.

I'm sure some executives believe that all used game resales effectively "steal" from them. But the vast majority of this animosity towards Gamestop's used game reselling is less about the fact that a game is getting resold and more about the fact that Gamestop actively discourages new sales to push used sales.

I know the argument that every used game resale being a loss of a new game sale is a fallacy, but for Gamestop it might not be so far off. And this is supposed to be a business partner for the publishers who's products they actively work to NOT sell. Its a full court press in a "properly" run gamestop to push the used product over the new product.

What Jaffe and other developers with this problem are basically saying is that as long as Gamestop actively discourages anything short of day one sales on their new products they are intentionally hurting their supposed business partner. Said business partner has resisted widespread digital distro in order to not have a major impact on Gamestop's bottom line. So if Gamestop is going to keep hurting their bottom line by pushing used over new then why should they continue to protect Gamestop's and slow the advent of digital distro?

There is no reason, short of Gamestop no longer actively pushing used over new (which will lose them a ton of money) or giving developers a royalty on new game sales (which will also lose them a ton of money). Gamestop will never do either one of those, so digital distro will become more and more common with each passing year until about 5 to 10 years time all content will be available via digital distro and Gamestop will see a massive negative blow back from the parasitic relationship they now are holding publishers to.
The reason they push used over new so heavily is because they'd be out of business very quickly otherwise. There's no margin provided to the retailer for any of this. In fact the only reason any retailer besides GS even bothers to sell new games and consoles is because they get people in the door and that retailer makes money on other stuff, like Best Buy or Fry's.

It's the publishing side that's doing this, and instead of trying to adapt to the marketplace with better money management, marketing, and not producing mounds of shit games they'd rather threaten and attempt to kill off the biggest game retailer in the world.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
Gorgon said:
You seem to care. You said "Anyways, Jaffe's right, he's wrong", so I suppose Jaffe's argument wasn't pointless to you.
My original point was that egghead was being an incendiary asshole for the sake of being one, but yes, I still think Jaffe's right.

Feel free to argue that, I honestly don't care.
 

DCharlie

And even i am moderately surprised
Jun 7, 2004
23,311
38
1,660
OK, how about thinking about the positive side to this?

well, thats how it's got to be - pubs have to look at the angle that in order to get people to buy new that they need to further incentivise people to do so.

We all appreciate that pubs are in a sticky spot right now, but $50-$60 games still represent a fair chunk of change. As i said previously, Nintendos point system is one thing that definitely made me want to pay the extra to get the games new - as i said before, a cross publisher points alliance with similarly awesome things to trade in against would be great (albeit unrealistic).

in terms of positive spin, pubs need to go with the "WOW LOOK! buy new and get this AMAZINGLY COOL EXTRA that you can't get second hand (* until after 1 year when you no longer care)" - it has to be something LEGITIMATELY extra and something that isn't too much of a punishment to second hand players: locking out huge chunks of Online wouldn't be good, something like a special minion or something that segregates you from other players online would be.

It all comes down to balance. Oh and special editions that are actually special - i'd buy into some of those (Devil Summoner 2 springs to mind)

My original point was that egghead was being an incendiary asshole for the sake of being one

... he was? where??
 

callous

Member
Jun 8, 2004
4,148
0
1,430
What I see is Jaffe running home to momma because he doesn't have a case, is called out on it by random twitter guy and doesn't have a counter argument. Pathetic.
 

Drek

Member
Jun 10, 2004
6,725
0
0
aeolist said:
The reason they push used over new so heavily is because they'd be out of business very quickly otherwise. There's no margin provided to the retailer for any of this. In fact the only reason any retailer besides GS even bothers to sell new games and consoles is because they get people in the door and that retailer makes money on other stuff, like Best Buy or Fry's.

It's the publishing side that's doing this, and instead of trying to adapt to the marketplace with better money management, marketing, and not producing mounds of shit games they'd rather threaten and attempt to kill off the biggest game retailer in the world.
Of course the profit margins on the gaming industry is shit, and no chain could realistically survive off of just that revenue stream alone.

But it doesn't change the fact that Gamestop was founded to do just that and sells itself as a business partner to publishers. To then overtly promote used over new titles is being a disingenuous business partner.

Say you grow lemons and need a way to sell them. I want to open a lemonade stand. So we decide "great! lets set up a distributor based relationship!" A few months down the road I've been selling (and by proxy ordering) fewer and fewer lemons from you. Come to find out its because I started buying concentrate from the local big box store and whenever a customer comes up asking for some lemonade I talk to them about how lemonade from concentrate tastes just like fresh lemonade and look at how much money it saves you! Then I start giving out customer appreciation cards where the more lemonade from concentrate you buy the cheaper I sell it to you, but nothing of the sort for fresh lemonade.

You as the lemon farmer, seeing me overtly subverting the business relationship we're supposed to be working on in order to pad my own profits, are going to continue supporting this?

It doesn't matter if a boutique shop like Gamestop can't exist without used game sales. As far as the industry as a whole is concerned that is Gamestop's problem. As long as big box stores exist they'll have a retail outlet. The industry's problem is that Gamestop's method for addressing this takes sales away from the industry in the form of Gamestop recycling merchandise that the industry only collects profit on with the initial sale.

I'm not saying that Gamestop needs to stop selling used games. In fact, if they did they'd be out of business in short order. What I'm saying is that the needs of the industry and the needs of Gamestop no longer intertwine well, and therefore it is a business relationship that is doomed to failure. The industry's alternative is to go towards digital distribution, which is already happening.

There is no solution. Gamestop won't give publishers a cut of used games sales, they won't even stop promoting used over new sales. The industry isn't going to widen profit margins on the software either. The end result is that boutique stores will be unable to continue their existence. More and more titles will be available through digital distribution, publishers will stop price fixing digital distro to protect retail, and we'll see a Steam level of pricing spread throughout the entire industry. At that point Gamestop goes under because they can no longer offer good value for the consumer, and the void they leave will be absorbed into the major big box and online retailers.

Its the publisher's ball, what people like Jaffe are saying is that if Gamestop doesn't change how it plays the game with them they're very likely to just take said ball and go home.
 

Johann

Member
Jul 6, 2008
2,417
0
750
Clear said:
The industry's problem is not with the principle of used games, its the way large retailers have chosen to monetize that market without giving due concern to the impact it has upon the sales of new titles.

That's it in a nutshell.

You may disagree, but its hard not to feel aggrieved when you see retailers making more profit from recycling old titles than you are making per unit off a new multi-million dollar development.

Its understandable that most gamers don't really care to whom their money eventually goes - if the price is right you take the deal, that's a no-brainer - but unfortunately it does matter if you're the one taking all the risk on the up-front costs of making the product.

Widespread used-games sales shortens the viable shelf-life of "new" product - the only product that developers and publishers make money from. It makes the whole enterprise more risky and discourages future investment.

The reality is there are far fewer publishers active today than there were 10 years ago, which should give some indication that things are seriously wrong considering the way the games "business" as a whole has expended over that period.

As mentioned before, videogame retailers can't live off new videogame sales. It is the fault of the publishers for creating this environment in which the second hand market thrives. The bigger problem is that many consumers feel perfectly fine with trading in videogames and purchasing games used. Gamestop and other retailers can badger consumers about trade-ins and offers but consumers won't give in if they don't feel the money/savings are worth it. Many new videogames simply do not keep their value the moment they are put up on the shelves and when they are in the possession of consumers. Now publishers want to eat their cake and have it too. They want to make just about any type of game they want and magically have a nonexistent number of trade ins.

If publishers want to know how to combat the second hand market, they can look at the recent July NPD. We saw a number of titles sell months after their original release. This implies that past purchasers were reluctant to part with the game and that new customers were forced to buy it new. Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, and EA Sports Active all use peripherals to increase the perceived value of the product. In particular, the games in the fitness genre tend to perform continuously well as seen through the performance of Ubisoft and EA's fitness games. We've also seen games with an strong multiplayer components encourage consumers to keep the game (we typically see strong sales continue past two months from release). The most notable entires were New Super Mario Bros. and Mario Kart DS. These are games that are highly desirable, unique enough to stay relevant years after release, and available at a lower price than most console games. Rather than seen as outdated game, they have become staples for DS owners due to their strong value.

Instead of, you know, complaining about used games, publishers could take steps to ensure their games retain value after purchase or identify markets in which certain games hold strong value. They should be trying to see why consumers continue to give strong support to the second hand market rather than looking for easy fixes and curealls to their problems.
 

Night_Trekker

Member
Jan 27, 2005
17,174
2
1,465
38
South Carolina
NeoUltima said:
Who said that though?

Oh darn, you got me. That wasn't an actual quote taken from a specific person, but a summary of the position being expressed by a number of people in the thread.

I don't have a problem with the people, I am talking about GS specifically and the way they push used, not the whole used market. Gamestop is essentially a chain store that makes about 50% of its profit on used sales. I can't think of any other retailer that does that. The fact is, the used game market is a different beast from others. A used game can work as fine as a new one. Going to bring up music and dvds? First both are fucked over due to piracy. Secondly music has a huge DD following and movies make the majority of their money in theaters.

As I said before, I think the practice of selling used games for $5 off the price of a new copy of a recently released game is pretty vile. I also think it's perfectly legal (and should remain so) and a very smart thing to do.

And I understand games are different from movies and music, but ultimately it doesn't matter. GS makes about 50% of its profit on used games? Their practices makes me sick, but since it's all entirely legal, my final reaction to that fact has to be "good for them". Someone made a smart business decision and it's paying off.

Of course publishers don't like that, but why should anyone else care?

Legally no, but they should be imo(apparently not in your flawed view though).

There's nothing flawed about my viewpoint on this issue. Not only are publishers not entitled to profit from used games legally, they aren't entitled to it in any sense at all. A sold game becomes the property of the person who buys it. They are and should be free to resell it to anyone and recoup a little bit of their initial investment. The publishers already got their money during the first sale. This is true regardless of the differences between the used market in gaming and other used markets.

It isn't enough profit for their liking? Too bad. My suggestion would be to get creative and make sure their games are compelling enough that gamers want to hold on to them (extensive online multiplayer modes are a good idea).

Wouldn't you rather some of your money go to the people that made the game, rather than all of it simply going to someone(GS) who resold it to you?

In a perfect, magical world in which retailers didn't have any rights or needs, of course I would. But this is reality.

Not to mention they ripped someone off in order to obtain the used copy.

I have no sympathy for someone stupid and/or lazy enough to sell a game to GameStop instead of selling it online to maximize the return they get on it. They knowingly agree to be ripped off.

Again as I said in an above post, this debating is a waste of time cause this will not happen(even if it should). Publishers will ramp up incentives for people to buy new or DD, until the market is ready for near 100% DD.

That's exactly what I expect to happen. Instead of giving gamers incentives to hold on to their releases, I fully expect publishers to do whatever they can to cut retailers like GameStop out of the picture, even if it completely fucks over the consumers who buy their products. Most gamers (the same people dumb enough to sell their games to GameStop) won't care and will accept it blindly. That will suck for gamers everywhere.
 

Starchasing

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
Publishers owning the distribution channel is a bad idea for consumers.

publishers owning devs and retailers?

vertical monopoly anyone?
 

LocoMrPollock

Banned
May 3, 2009
4,694
0
0
Jaffe is low class and an asshole, that's why I don't like him. And publishers don't have a right to used game sales, that's just not how it works. If they want to compete with Gamestop, then they can open their own used game stores or they can "try" the digital only route, but I'd say we are a long ways off from that. Certainly more than 5 years, anyway.

In any case, crying about it and calling foul isn't gonna help.
 

Kintaro

Worships the porcelain goddess
Jun 10, 2004
27,926
0
0
Another thought on the used game sales. Children and parents. I really don't think developers and publishers truly understand how many kids and parents use trade ins to play and buy games. For young parents looking to get their children started in on games, used games and their loose policies make them feel much safer in picking up games for their children. If their child doesn't like it or take to it, they can safely bring it back and try it again.

As the children get older, those games are traded in for newer games (that the child sees commercials of) or what have you as their tastes develop. It lowers the cost of new games for children growing up to be able to trade in their games. More importantly, it gets the parents in the door looking for games for themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've seen it.

What do you think will happen if this goes away? The same thing that will happen when I was a kid. Very, very few purchased games and more rented games. Parents will take fewer chances in buying games outright for fear their child won't like it. The child will get more used to the idea of renting games than buying them and now the publisher has to hard much harder to sell them games. Not to mention the hard sell it would be to get Mommy or Daddy to open up their credit/debit cards to use online in some digital store (prepaid cards are glorious here).

I realize that both Vic and David have children of their own and may or not may agree with this notion. That's cool. All I can tell you is what I see from working in my area (not a major city) with middle to lower class families who made up the bulk of the gaming buying populace (priorities are weird...).

On a separate note, just like Angry Video Game Nerd shows us, children of my generation bought some shitty ass games. Some things never changes because my God they buy some horrible, horrible games. :lol