Support NeoGAF

[haowan]

Dodging the issue? Complete ownership is the entire fucking issue here. You're paying for the whole game, but you only truly own 80% of it? What is that shit?

As for your example, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

OK. My hypothetical scenario is separating the revenue for the retailer and the publisher/development studio at the retail level. The consumer has the option (as they do now) to pay the retailer for the game (i.e. used) or to pay the retailer and the publisher/developers for the game (i.e. new). As the retailer, I get more from used so I'm pushing those, which hurts the publisher/dev even though they feed us the new product in the first place. As the publisher/dev, seeing what the retailer is doing, I want to get more of my cut since the retailer is taking much more cash reselling my games for nearly the same price as RRP more or less transparently to the consumer. So the deal between the pub and the retailer becomes this: you can sell our games at your used price, with less royalties paid to the pub, but if you do that, the consumer has to pay for parts of it later, if they want to access them. Consumer gets less of the product than normal but they also pay less, and can pay for extra bits later if they so choose. The money they pay for those extra bits goes to the pub/platformholder/dev, not the retailer. Retailer can also sell the product at full price and any consumer walking away after paying that has nothing else to worry about and can access everything.

Consumers get the choice, retailers get to offer a slightly wider range of product and still get to push their own preferred items that make them more money, the developers/publishers get some of their previously-lost royalties online in DLC transactions.

edit: Imagine it like this, all versions of the game in the store are the same, right? but if you buy it full price the retailer gives you a card that has a code on it to download the content. That's your card. When you resell the game back to the retailer they only take the game, not the card. Conceptually that stuff could already be on the disc, but if that bothers you then I can't really help you.

 

[Feral Youth]

Kill piracy, rentals and game trading all in one go!

And every game shop around in the process.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I must've missed the part where Epic said you couldn't.

"You can't do this"

and

"You can do this, but as a result of you doing it we propose that industry undertakes radically anti-consumer moves to discourage you from doing it"

are the same thing. No shit Epic isn't getting the law changed to read that Dragona is going to be dragged from her house in Norfinlandistan and shot if she buys used or trades a game in. The impact is still the same--Dragona is arguing that retailers and producers ought not kneecap the consumer's right of second sale and you're here saying "Crippling your ability to successfully do something isn't the same as banning it!"

 

[BravoSuperStar]

Curse this shadowy "developer" who emerged from the darkness to suggest this nefarious plan that Epic clearly wants no part of despite the fact their president mentions it in a favorable manner!

 

[Aeris130]

What a dilemma. I want every company supporting this bullshit to go out of buisness, but at the same time, that means I can't get my game endings from them any longer. whaaaaaaat

 

[natethegreat409]

I guess they think they're not making enough fucking money.... Jesus I'm sick of greedy bastards.

 

[Blueblur1]

If the games industry has such a huge problem with rentals and used games then they should be making their case in U.S. Courts and not screwing and confusing with consumers. Michael Capps is... Well, I'll keep it clean.

 

[realraptor]

Legal means: it's my property and I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, including destroying it if I so choose.

The idea that you're given a licence for a game is complete and utter bullshit.

Why are you people so eager and adamant about giving up your few remaining consumer rights?



I'm telling them to fuck off on the very notion they could even attempt to try this in the future. The fact it even crossed their minds is an affront to gamers, consumers, people everywhere.

Laws can change...you buy a dvd, you're buying the rights to view it. Not sure about games/cd's, but I wouldn't be surprised if they go that route.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

If we're giving Epic the benefit of the doubt by saying "it might have been someone Capps talked to at a conference!", why can't people also assume he just meant developers within his own company?

I don't see anything in his statement that would conflict that meaning. Developers doesn't necessarily mean that all of n-Space came up to him. It could have been people reflecting a general feeling within Epic.

 

[Chrange]

I'm telling them to fuck off on the very notion they could even attempt to try this in the future. The fact it even crossed their minds is an affront to gamers, consumers, people everywhere.

IT DIDN'T CROSS THEIR MINDS. HOLY FUCK.

That's where all the "READ THE FUCKING OP" replies are coming from. It wasn't an EPIC idea, nor is it something that EPIC is considering doing. They went with the flashback map pack - something people are saying they would support, while still bashing Epic for trying to sell the game's ending.

Capps never said Epic was, will, or would do this.

Reading comprehension is at an all-time low around here.

 

[Beer Monkey]

The used/trade business keeps needed liquidity in the game market. Developers need to look at the huge growth in the game business in the last couple of generations and how it has corresponded with the explosion of game retailers who accept trade. I took a straw poll of my coworkers who have kids that game and every single one of them said their kids would be buying fewer new games if the used market didn't exist.

 

[haowan]

I guess they think they're not making enough fucking money.... Jesus I'm sick of greedy bastards.

Tell that to the 600 people EA just laid off.

 

[haowan]

The used/trade business keeps needed liquidity in the game market. Developers need to look at the huge growth in the game business in the last couple of generations and how it has corresponded with the explosion of game retailers who accept trade. I took a straw poll of my coworkers who have kids that game and every single one of them said their kids would be buying fewer new games if the used market didn't exist.

What if the new games were 60% of the price they are now?

 

[~Kinggi~]

This is a shitty idea.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

IT DIDN'T CROSS THEIR MINDS. HOLY FUCK.

That's where all the "READ THE FUCKING OP" replies are coming from. It wasn't an EPIC idea, nor is it something that EPIC is considering doing. They went with the flashback map pack - something people are saying they would support, while still bashing Epic for trying to sell the game's ending.

Capps never said Epic was, will, or would do this.

Reading comprehension is at an all-time low around here.

If it didn't cross their minds, why the hell is he talking about it in such a positive light? Considering the past few years with the RIAA/MPAA regarding what is "intellectual property" and then the constant bitching of publishers regarding the "horrible problem" of used game sales, as a consumer I've become even more suspicious of corporations who keep pushing the limit of what counts as "their fair share" of profitability.

 

[Dark Octave]

I like the idea, but who would give a shit for the majority of the "oh yeah we almost forgot!" 5 second endings in most games nowadays anyway.

*looking at you especially Bioshock*

This also assumes that everyone has their 360 (or MS's next console) hooked up online and has an HDD.

There has to be something better to promote more "new sales" than this.

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

Tell that to the 600 people EA just laid off.

Video game revenue exceeds movies and music combined, and EA is at the top of the list of earners. Take this up with EA, not the consumers.

 

[ElFly]

I look forward to non-live gold users getting the ending one week later than everybody else :lol

Oh, retarded new world, that has such idiots in it.

 

[ZealousD]

How far did you have to stretch for that one?

Uh... not far at all? Let me spell it out plainly.

1.) Paid Ending DLC meant to deter people from buying used means fewer people will buy used.
2.) Fewer people buying used means more games up for sell second-hand.
3.) More games on sell second-hand means sell price on used games goes down because of simple supply and demand.
4.) Lower prices on used games mean you get less if you decide to sell your game.

That is not a long stretch.

 

[gregor7777]

I think perm bets are stupid. And really, we both would lose in the end

Well, I suppose that's good that you feel that way. After all, there's no way for you to lose that bet. :lol

If it happens, I lose. If it doesn't, well, who says it won't happen next year?

We'd have to put a time frame on it.

 

[itxaka]

Tell that to the 600 people EA just laid off.

Tell that to all the videogame shops that will close if this is implemented in the future.

 

[haowan]

If it didn't cross their minds, why the hell is he talking about it in such a positive light? Considering the past few years with the RIAA/MPAA regarding what is "intellectual property" and then the constant bitching of publishers regarding the "horrible problem" of used game sales, as a consumer I've become even more suspicious of corporations who keep pushing the limit of what counts as "their fair share" of profitability.

He didn't particularly mention it in a positive light, just that this was the level developers were starting to think at because of the impact of used retail.

 

[Beer Monkey]

What if the new games were 60% of the price they are now?

You mean like how the digital delivery of new PC games has made them 40% cheaper? :lol

We see so many examples of the middleman being cut out but not of the cost savings being passed to the consumer.

 

[Mooreberg]

Tell that to the 600 people EA just laid off.

That only enforces his "greed" argument. EA could afford to pay those people if they wanted to.

 

[andycapps]

This may have already been discussed as I only had time to read the first page, but who gets the money from rentals? Does the publisher sell those to Blockbuster and Hollywood Video and not give any money to the developer? I would think they're probably still getting something off those games when sold to Blockbuster, even if it's not as much as if each person that rented the game bought the game instead. It's still *something*. I would love to be able to buy every game I want, but the reality is I have money for 1 or 2 at a time while there are much more than that than I can afford. The solution for me is to rent the ones that I want to play but don't deem worth my $60. Obviously, if I had the money, I'd buy everything, but it's just not the reality.

 

[haowan]

Tell that to all the videogame shops that will close if this is implemented in the future.

If the price of games were lower then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. I'd advocate that over the outlandish solution in the OP, but something should be done. As I said, you don't see mainstream record shops selling used CDs at 90% of their RRP.

 

[MC Safety]

Read and comprehend this, people. It rather changes the statement. Paid DLC endings suck shit; free DLC as a means of curbing used game sales and piracy is A-OK.

But wait. What about people who simply don't take their consoles online?

There are still a lot of people who don't have broadband service.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yes - and it needs to stop now before it gets further out of hand. HMV have just announced they're doing used game sales. Where is the used CD section in HMV? Where is the used DVD section? How is it possible to fuck an entire industry like this without repercussions?

There's a simple reason used CDs and DVDs aren't there: new ones don't cost $60!

You know what's funny? If publishers manage to kill Gamestop, they'd kill the biggest new game retailer. I promise you, Gamestop would go under (like every other game retailer that used to exist) if they couldn't sell used games, because publishers don't allow enough margin on games to keep a retailer in business.

 

[Dark Octave]

Tell that to the 600 people EA just laid off.

Companies like EA will lay off employees because they want to spend an extra $260 grand at their corporate Christmas party rather than take it out of the 197 billion they are constantly growing in the bank.

EA isn't hurting for anybody.

 

[border]

It's actually a pretty awful idea, even if you just look at it as a moneymaking proposition. The game's ending is going to be posted on YouTube for anyone who wants to view it. Somebody renting a game or buying a used title for $15 is not going to pay $20 for the ending - he'll watch it on YouTube. At that point, you are charging someone just to play the final boss battle or last level. Nobody will buy that....they will just skip it.

The amount of entitlement in this post is pretty startling - you want to be able to get a game for crazy cheap, then turn around and sell it for a profit when you're done with it.

How is anyone ever able to sell a game for a profit? Trade-in value is almost never above retail price.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

He didn't particularly mention it in a positive light, just that this was the level developers were starting to think at because of the impact of used retail.

And that has nothing ever to do with the consumer. You don't see IKEA bitching about used furniture sales and thinking they should combat it by having one-use-only-special allen keys ONLY reproduceable from IKEA just in case someone wants to sell their goddamned sofa.

If developers are so concerned about "lost sales", they shouldn't be blaming consumers. Prices of games are too high. Budgets are too high and not getting enough of a return? Boo hoo, learn to properly structure your development then, to ensure you have a profit.

 

[Chrange]

If it didn't cross their minds, why the hell is he talking about it in such a positive light? Considering the past few years with the RIAA/MPAA regarding what is "intellectual property" and then the constant bitching of publishers regarding the "horrible problem" of used game sales, as a consumer I've become even more suspicious of corporations who keep pushing the limit of what counts as "their fair share" of profitability.

Where did he talk about it in a positive light?

Did you read the original article at all? Did anyone actually read the source article, not just the ones that cherrypick a quote out?

It's not an idea Epic is entertaining. They clearly went a different route with the included map pack code. Why this thread is still so far off from what he ACTUALLY said, I don't understand.

From the very first post: "Epic Games' President Mike Capps has suggested the idea that game developers, in order to curb the sales of secondhand games, start making the endings of games downloadable content:"

He never suggested that at all. Nor does he say he supports the idea.

 

[haowan]

And that has nothing ever to do with the consumer. You don't see IKEA bitching about used furniture sales and thinking they should combat it by having one-use-only-special allen keys ONLY reproduceable from IKEA just in case someone wants to sell their goddamned sofa.

Bad analogy but:

If developers are so concerned about "lost sales", they shouldn't be blaming consumers. Prices of games are too high. Budgets are too high and not getting enough of a return? Boo hoo, learn to properly structure your development then, to ensure you have a profit.

Yes, I agree with everything you just said there.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

But wait. What about people who simply don't take their consoles online?

There are still a lot of people who don't have broadband service.

No one seems to have addressed my post at all, so I'll restate it:

To all the people making the (legitimate) complaint that not all people have the internet:

What would be your opinion if the free-for-new-buyers thing related only to online multiplayer?

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Capps never said Epic was, will, or would do this.

They already are doing it, the flashback maps in GoW2 are the exact same thing. How big a difference is it to imagine them doing it to a single player element when they've already done it with a multiplayer one, especially when a lot of people will buy the game for it's multiplayer?

I seriously believe we have to somehow boycott titles that pull this shit. It's just with people not comprehending the lunacy of the situation and without any clear way to reach a significant number of people I don't see how it will happen. Does it violate any consumer rights?

 

[haowan]

No one seems to have addressed my post at all, so I'll restate it:

I read it

The likely outcome is free/paid noncritical DLC (see: Dead Space) available for retail users and locked out multiplayer modes and other internet-specific stuff. If it's unlockable via internet then the content should be internet-based. That's clear.

With that out the way, is this still a bad idea? How does it hurt you?

 

[AstroLad]

Pretty cool that they would give away a whole boss and cinematic for free like that.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

I read it

*Most people.

 

[Chrange]

They already are doing it, the flashback maps in GoW2 are the exact same thing. How big a difference is it to imagine them doing it to a single player element when they've already done it with a multiplayer one, especially when a lot of people will buy the game for it's multiplayer?

I seriously believe we have to somehow boycott titles that pull this shit. It's just with people not comprehending the lunacy of the situation and without any clear way to reach a significant number of people I don't see how it will happen. Does it violate any consumer rights?

Really? Multiplayer maps are the same thing as the ENDING TO THE GAME?

Holy fuck, I'm done with this thread.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

Do you think you should have the right to sell XBLA, Steam, and other download only games? Or does the presence of a physical medium make the difference?

Or are you saying that publishers can't mix physical and downloadable content?

 

[RoH]

I think its a good idea; you can get it used or steal it and not pay the developers their dues or buy it new and reward them for the work.

Good Thing #1: it would be a effective deterrent towards Piracy
Good Thing #2: it would reward those loyal consumers who support the development team
Good Thing #3: it would reward the developer

The only sucky thing I can think of is the implementation; would it be like PC gamings CD key? A unique identifier on the disk? I would hope for the latter.

 

[ghst]

rentals and trade-ins killed console gaming!

remember this thread next time some ceo jerkwad shoots their mouth off about piracy ruining the sales of their shitty game on pc's.

 

[Campster]

How is anyone ever able to sell a game for a profit? Trade-in value is almost never above retail price.

I wasn't saying it was possible, I was questioning his argument. He said he bought the game for cheap, and then "because he didn't like the game" would charge $10 more for it - only then no one would buy it because of the need to pay to get the end of the game.

Unless I'm reading it terribly incorrectly, anyways.

Can somebody please put this in other examples so people see what a stupid idea this is?


I'll start. I bought a movie second hand, go home, watch it and the movie stops at the 45 minutes and ask me to pay another 10 bucks if I want to see the end of the movie. Also, I have to be on-line. If for any reason I don't have internet I cannot see the end of the movie.
More, I can't lend the movie to one of my friends as they aren't gonna see it fully if they do not pay.

Also, when I'am gonna sell it, because I don't like it I can bump the price 10 bucks so I don't lose money, but probably nobody is gonna buy it at that price (and less if they had to pay 10 more bucks to see the end) so I have to lost 10 bucks for nothing.

So in the end, I bin the fucking movie and download it from the internet and watch it for free and without stupid issue.


RETARDED IDEA. Fuck everyone who is for this shit.

 

[itxaka]

^^^^

Hey, Campster, I answered you but it got lost in all the post out there. Probably I mislead the words used to explain myself into that situation as english is not my first language.

Short answer, no I don't meant that.

I think its a good idea; you can get it used or steal it and not pay the developers their dues or buy it new and reward them for the work.

Good Thing #1: it would be a effective deterrent towards Piracy
Good Thing #2: it would reward those loyal consumers who support the development team
Good Thing #3: it would reward the developer

The only sucky thing I can think of is the implementation; would it be like PC gamings CD key? A unique identifier on the disk? I would hope for the latter.

wat

It will be the opposite I believe. If I have to choose into paying 30$ for a second hand game or paying 30+20$ to see the end I rather pirate it and pay the 20$ as if it was the price I paid for the game.

Mmmh, okay, so if that 20$ were the rigth to finish the game (a rigth to play it or whatever, like windows) will it be then okay to pirate the medium (the dvd)? after all you will be paying for the rigth to play it.

 

[Crateman]

If games weren't shitty people wouldn't rent them instead of buying them.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Really? Multiplayer maps are the same thing as the ENDING TO THE GAME?

Holy fuck, I'm done with this thread.

Actually, you're right. In Gears 2 the multiplayer maps are a lot more important than the end of the game.

 

[maniac-kun]

News to publishers / developers: if your game dosnt sell your game is the problem (its probalby shitty) its not the resell markets fault. Maybe youre screwing to much with your customers around in the first place (DRM, Online Activation, limited installs, unlocking content on the game disc by paying for it online, players consider your games as scamm petz dogz etc) or do other stupid things (i accidently your cd key RA3, forum moderators threatening people to disable there games RA3/Spore, missing features in the retail game, releasing bugged games). I am looking at you Ubisoft and EA.

 

[Feral Youth]

What if the new games were 60% of the price they are now?

Then there wouldn't be a problem.

See Half Life 2, and Guildwars for example. You can't buy those games secondhand, nor do shops accept trades on them.


To kill the secondhand market would be easy enough if the intention is solely to put an end to various gaming stores.

Sell your games cheaper to Asda, Tescos, Curry's, Dixons, Argos, Walmart, etc, etc. Put them in direct competition with Game/Station, Gamestop and the like, and the problem is solved in the long run. Especially when you can walk into Asda and find new games cheaper than they are secondhand sometimes.

Game/Station screw people over on trades bigtime. It's about time they got put in their place. Secondhand games aren't all that cheap now, and they are milking it, I often find it cheaper to import a new game from the States or Canada than to buy it secondhand anyway.. Publishers need to find an alternative way to make games cheaper, without punishing the hardcore consumer. It's the hardcore gamers that are buying their games new on day one.

 

[Mr Vociferous]

If the price of games were lower then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Nah, it'd still exist.

Piracy and secondary sales are still big in music (which is considerably affordable for the most part) and I think, because of the similar nature of music and games when it comes to be form and function, piracy is something they're going to have to deal with in a gen-by-gen basis. For this, I completely support digital distribution as a solution to providing additional incentives to people who buy at retail -- I don't think creating an incomplete game and forcing people to be online to experience the full version benefits anyone in the end, including the developer.

 

[Vorador]

Do you think you should have the right to sell XBLA, Steam, and other download only games? Or does the presence of a physical medium make the difference?

Or are you saying that publishers can't mix physical and downloadable content?

You can sell your XBLA, Steam or whatever account and the rights to those games.

PD: I read the article, it's even worse than i though. Capps comment that "we don't employ people who buys 2º hand games". REALLY? You even dictamine your staff private lifes?

I'm already seeing it: "this guy has a pretty good resume, but when asked about if he buys 2º hand stuff, he said YES! we cannot hire someone who buys 2º hand (but if he smokes crack or beats it's wife, i don't care)"