Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

It certainly would be, if that is what I thought or said. I said that the people who create an intellectual property certainly deserve a SHARE of all profits from it.

That is utter nonsense that is wholly lacking in perspective. Videogames are not the only object in the world that have intellectual property attached to them.

You don't think there's any intellectual property attached to a car, or a book, or a guitar amp's circuit?

You're just putting the blinders on because you profit from that industry. You do not deserve anything from secondhand sales because you invented the product. Sorry to break it to you, but that's just nutty.

 

[Version 3.0]

You have never owned any game you've bought from the dawn of the Second Console generation. Possibly earlier. Due to unenforcable user agreements you have been able to act as if you HAVE owned it, because once the game was physically in your hands there were few cost-effective ways of enforcing the agreement.

Publishers would love for us all to believe this, but it's BS. Nice try, but it flopped. If these hilarious "you don't really own it" agreements were at all legal, Gamestop and Ebay would have been sued out of business 10 times over by now. They're not just unenforcable, they're simply not valid.

On the digital side, we'll see, this may play out in court again, but the way I see it, I can still sell my downloaded games. I just can't physically separate them from my console. The lack of a physical game doesn't give the publisher my rights, it just makes it difficult for me to exercise them.

 

[Trevor360]

We don’t make any money when someone rents it

Then man up and stop selling to rental outlets, bitch

 

[b.e.r.g]

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

... and sales.

PC gaming: limited installs
Console gaming: half the game locked
MMOs: monthly fees

Sucks to be a gamer these days... I might even have to get a job to keep up...

 

[antiloop]

Why just endings. Let me just buy the beginning and/or the middle.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Publishers would love for us all to believe this, but it's BS. Nice try, but it flopped. If these hilarious "you don't really own it" agreements were at all legal, Gamestop and Ebay would have been sued out of business 10 times over by now. They're not just unenforcable, they're simply not valid.

On the digital side, we'll see, this may play out in court again, but the way I see it, I can still sell my downloaded games. I just can't physically separate them from my console. The lack of a physical game doesn't give the publisher my rights, it just makes it difficult for me to exercise them.

Couldn't have put it better.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think the current digital distrubtion model is not only quasi-legal, but it's probably completely illegal.

 

[Trevor360]

I support this plan to retroactively fix Halo 2

 

[maniac-kun]

Pfffffffffft.

Valve has been doing this for a long time, hell, the ending to HL2 came in not 1 but 2 pieces of DLC years after the fact.

iam not realy happy how the story is structured with hl2 but with episode 3 that chapter of the hl story will be closed. They should have a better ending at the maingame / episodes that dosnt interrupt the story so abruptly. If you play all episodes in a row its a good way of story telling but not if you have to wait years and the episode you just played feels unfinished without the next episode.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Why? Second hand software sales happen mere weeks after launch and cut into that first flush of sales. When you buy a second hand game for $20 less than the new game all you are saving is the money that would go to the people that made the game.

So? What about books that flood the used book market that cut into the used book sales?

I understand your desire to save money - but can't you see how destructive that sales model is to the industry?

Nothing about saving money, it's all about my rights as a consumer. Stop infringing them. The fact that this model is "destructive" to the industry is the industry's fault, not the consumer's.

Ever wonder why Nintendo games often sell for 45-50$ used at a GS (even GC titles today)? Because people don't sell them back as often as other games, they keep them. Maybe publishers should think about that and figure out why that is.

There are no other products - except for music and DVD's - that have the same business model. With the demise of arcades the games industry has no analog to the Box Office or the Live Concert. How else do we keep the industry afloat?

How do we keep the book market afloat? How do we keep the car industry afloat? Furniture?

The Gaming Industry is not special in this regard.

Of course, it's not fair to ask YOU that question. As you indicated - it's not YOUR problem to solve it, but don't be surprised if the industry finds a way to do so.

And if it is infringing on my rights, you won't have a customer (and many more like me) anymore.

You have never owned any game you've bought from the dawn of the Second Console generation. Possibly earlier. Due to unenforcable user agreements you have been able to act as if you HAVE owned it, because once the game was physically in your hands there were few cost-effective ways of enforcing the agreement.

Bullshit. Highlighted as above: just because you (and publishers) say so doesn't make it true. My money, my purchase, my rights. And apparently the law agrees with me.

With the advent of Online components and Digital Distribution there are finally ways to ensure that the license isn't abused and IS enforceable. I know you don't like it, but this is where consumer actions and rising development costs have been steady leading us. Now we're here. You're going to have to eschew Digital Distribution with your purchasing power - that's the only recourse open to a consumer.

Consumer "actions"? You mean by selling our OWN games to whomever we please? Please, don't go down that path. DLC and DD are never going to be good things for the consumer, until the industry fixes things to mirror every other goddamned market.

You just said that it was up to the Industry to fix it's business model to make it self-sustaining. I agree with you. The second hand market is definitely an area up for review.

Fixing its own business model has nothing to do with the used market. Nothing. Just because you're crying about GS doesn't make it your business. Again, why do Nintendo games NOT get traded back?

You don't have to tell ME that. I've been in the industry for over a decade. Thankfully things are definitely improving and improving fast in that regard.

As noted with your other post, you're no longer in the industry. Why do you care about publishers who didn't treat you properly again? They sure as shit ain't going to suddenly fix everything if they make even MORE money bullying the consumer.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Why just endings. Let me just buy the beginning and/or the middle.

They should just stop releasing games. They wouldn't have so many pirated and resold games if they didn't release them.

 

[Version 3.0]

If what you're saying about Game Credit is true then, I can see the validity of your argument. My own, somewhat uninformed understanding, was that Game Credit was almost exclusively recycled into other second hand purchases, creating an entire industry of second hand games trading which effectively cut the Industry off from making profits on its own product.

Some game credit goes towards other used game, of course. But like I said, go out to a store and see. New games absolutely are the prime driving force behind trade-ins--though of course, their new drive is to promote early trade-ins to capture those sales with used copies. But Gamestop is, I believe, the #1 retailer of new games in the US. And their used game business is most likely the reason for that.

 

[DeBurgo]

Problems like this with the industry just makes me think that the videogame industry is pretty much destined for failure, like the comic book industry.

I mean it has a lot in common with comic books. There's the perceptions that it's mostly for children, that it should be censored, or that it isn't worth the money. A lot of people dropped comic books because they thought the content you get for a few pages wasn't worth it. You'd pay a buck or two for a 10-15 page comic book that you might read in as many minutes, at best. I think that unless something changes, there's going to be a day, in the not-so-distant future, where people are just going to think it isn't worth the time or money, and move onto something else. I dunno, maybe I'm just being obtuse, but that's what it feels like to me.

The thing is BOTH sides in this argument are essentially correct, from their own perspectives. The harsh reality may be that there isn't any kind of sustainable business model for videogames as an entertainment industry, at least in the form it exists now.

 

[Lostconfused]

Problems like this with the industry just makes me think that the videogame industry is pretty much destined for failure, like the comic book industry.

I mean it has a lot in common with comic books. There's the perceptions that it's mostly for children, that it should be censored, or that it isn't worth the money. A lot of people dropped comic books because they thought the content you get for a few pages wasn't worth it. You'd pay a buck or two for a 10-15 page comic book that you might read in as many minutes, at best. I think that unless something changes, there's going to be a day, in the not-so-distant future, where people are just going to think it isn't worth the time or money, and move onto something else. I dunno, maybe I'm just being obtuse, but that's what it feels like to me.

The thing is BOTH sides in this argument are essentially correct, from their own perspectives. The harsh reality may be that there isn't any kind of sustainable business model for videogames as an entertainment industry, at least in the form it exists now.

The thing is comic books are not the only thing that exists in the print medium and they are still around. Games, entertainment software will probably be around for a while yet because the medium is still rather new.

 

[Campster]

Problems like this with the industry just makes me think that the videogame industry is pretty much destined for failure, like the comic book industry.

I mean it has a lot in common with comic books. There's the perceptions that it's mostly for children, that it should be censored, or that it isn't worth the money. A lot of people dropped comic books because they thought the content you get for a few pages wasn't worth it. You'd pay a buck or two for a 10-15 page comic book that you might read in as many minutes, at best. I think that unless something changes, there's going to be a day, in the not-so-distant future, where people are just going to think it isn't worth the time or money, and move onto something else. I dunno, maybe I'm just being obtuse, but that's what it feels like to me.

The thing is BOTH sides in this argument are essentially correct, from their own perspectives. The harsh reality may be that there isn't any kind of sustainable business model for videogames as an entertainment industry, at least in the form it exists now.

A lot of people see this problem growing - remember, used games aren't the source of all the industry's woes, they're a symptom. We have a fundamentally broken business model (of which used games is just a part), with game development costs reaching that of a lot of movies but having nowhere near the audience or number of revenue sources to justify that cost.

With any luck, a transition to an alternate business model will be smooth and not involve the collapse of any publishers or studios. How likely that is at this point, I don't know.

What that alternate business model could be is still largely up in the air - replacing brick and mortar with 100% digital distribution? Heading towards a single, open console standard to lower development costs? Simply developing smaller, cheaper games? Any and all of these have been suggested, and they each have obvious benefits to the developers and publishers, as well as consumers.

Regardless, we can't continue this trend of "Bigger, better, and more badass." It isn't financially sustainable. Our audience is teeny, our costs are rising astronomically, our business model is broken, and we continue to drive ourselves towards a breaking point, not away from it. This isn't chicken-little-ism, this isn't me decrying the end of times for games as an industry. It's saying that change is necessary - we're having difficulty treading water as it is, and things are going to just get worse if we continue believing we're doing nothing wrong.

 

[maniac-kun]

I think the games industry is the only one that treats there paying customers like criminals and with mindsets like this its set to a path of doom. You see a lot of resistance now against the draconic DRM situation on the PC side (spore 1 star user reviews on amazon) and developers threatening paying customers with dlc on the console side. They are about to drive the industry against the wall at full speed maybe they are building up there own bubble which will burst some day and we have a situation again like in the 80s. But the solution is easy: the customer is the king and not your enemy.

 

[Zen]

It is your problem. The longer the model continues to become more and more unworkable the worse effect it will have on our hobby.

 

[Lostconfused]

Regardless, we can't continue this trend of "Bigger, better, and more badass." It isn't financially sustainable. Our audience is teeny, our costs are rising astronomically, our business model is broken, and we continue to drive ourselves towards a breaking point, not away from it. This isn't chicken-little-ism, this isn't me decrying the end of times for games as an industry. It's saying that change is necessary - we're having difficulty treading water as it is, and things are going to just get worse if we continue believing we're doing nothing wrong.

Well things are already slowing down. Looking from a pc gaming persepctive there are very few games that have been pushing the hardware currently available. And developers certainly see this problem coming and are trying to find solutions right now. One of the big ideas seems to be better midleware that handles some what might be called mundane time sink tasks that have to be repeated with each new game.

It is your problem. The longer the model continues to become more and more unworkable the worse effect it will have on our hobby.

Its not the consumers problem to fix though.

 

[iammeiam]

When Rock Band 2 launched with the codes to get 20 additional songs free via download, I thought it was brilliant--clear incentive to purchase the game new instead of renting or secondhand. But then, they still gave me the whole 80-plus-song game up front.

If they released Rock Band 3 and required me to download the final few sets of songs, I'd be peeved. Right now, if they take the Rock Band servers offline tomorrow and my XBox hard-drive dies, I'll still have all of RB 2 on disc. Same thing ten years from now, and that's the way I like it--I buy my games to keep, and shouldn't have to worry about parts mysteriously going missing if an individual publisher or whatever goes under.

 

[Iain Howe]

A lot of people see this problem growing - remember, used games aren't the source of all the industry's woes, they're a symptom. We have a fundamentally broken business model (of which used games is just a part), with game development costs reaching that of a lot of movies but having nowhere near the audience or number of revenue sources to justify that cost.

With any luck, a transition to an alternate business model will be smooth and not involve the collapse of any publishers or studios. How likely that is at this point, I don't know.

What that alternate business model could be is still largely up in the air - replacing brick and mortar with 100% digital distribution? Heading towards a single, open console standard to lower development costs? Simply developing smaller, cheaper games? Any and all of these have been suggested, and they each have obvious benefits to the developers and publishers, as well as consumers.

Regardless, we can't continue this trend of "Bigger, better, and more badass." It isn't financially sustainable. Our audience is teeny, our costs are rising astronomically, our business model is broken, and we continue to drive ourselves towards a breaking point, not away from it. This isn't chicken-little-ism, this isn't me decrying the end of times for games as an industry. It's saying that change is necessary - we're having difficulty treading water as it is, and things are going to just get worse if we continue believing we're doing nothing wrong.

I've never liked the blockbuster business model for precisely the reasons you give in this post. It seems madness that the successes of 1 game pay off the failures of the other 9. This generation has seen art content costs absolutely skyrocket, and it remains to be seen whether the blockbuster model will continue to be effective.

MMOG's are one route to the future - charge monthly fees for the service and spend that cash on developing new content to keep audiences loyal and hooked. But not every game can be an MMOG and the market for MMOGs is much smaller (in terms of number of products, not in number of users or dollars) than the traditional market.

The problem is that consumers have demonstrated that they buy into the 'bigger, better and more badass' business model. Whilst spending a fortune on a game doesn't guarantee you a hit, a budget developed title simply won't perform in many genre's today.

Perhaps we're due for a rerun of the great Simulation and Point and Click Adventure die off, with high maintenance genre's doomed to extinction?

 

[TAJ]

So the no mandatory hard drive excuse only works when companies want it to?

Unlock keys are only 108KB, at least on 360. That's not exactly a memory card-killer.
It's hardly a problem for dial-up, either. Yes, you can use dial-up to download it from Live, but it's too complicated for Joe Sixpack right now. They'd need to make it easier.

Ask someone from Circuity City about DIVX. You will have your answer.

There's no one left at Circuit City who remembers. All of their experienced employees were eliminated over the last several years. It's the main reason that they're failing now.

And no more Epic games for me.

Ooooooooh, big sacrifice... considering that they don't develop for Wii anyway. (And they seem to be done with PC, too)

Say Epic wants to tell you that you can't sell a game you own to a friend. There's no difference between that and selling it to Gamestop, who sells it to someone else.

Are you selling the game to your friend for $5 less than the price of a new copy? I think not. Was your friend on his way to Best Buy to buy a new copy? Again, I think not.
It's not the same as Gamestop, then.

 

[The Hermit]

They should just stop releasing games. They wouldn't have so many pirated and resold games if they didn't release them.

Well, it seems thats the natural evolution, right?!

 

[Iain Howe]

Publishers would love for us all to believe this, but it's BS. Nice try, but it flopped. If these hilarious "you don't really own it" agreements were at all legal, Gamestop and Ebay would have been sued out of business 10 times over by now. They're not just unenforcable, they're simply not valid.

On the digital side, we'll see, this may play out in court again, but the way I see it, I can still sell my downloaded games. I just can't physically separate them from my console. The lack of a physical game doesn't give the publisher my rights, it just makes it difficult for me to exercise them.

Well, that's a fight that has yet to be played out in court. In much the same way as the EULA / License fight was a difficult and expensive fight to win in court the DLC fight will be a difficult and expensive fight to win in court. In the former case it was too difficult for the Publisher to assert its rights. In the latter case it'll probably be too difficult for the consumer to have the concept of the License to play overturned as being an infringement of statutory rights.

My experience of these things is with Steam - where I can take my Steam Account with me when I move from one PC to another. I understand that if Steam went under, I'd lose all my games (a horrible thought) but I love not having to schlep them about in disk boxes.

At the end of the day, it'll be what it'll be. The Table top RPG industry was big money at one point - it peaked and has been in decline for about a decade or so. Perhaps the games industry is destined for the same fate.

At the end of the day, you guys will find different hobbies and the Devs / Publishers will find different jobs. It's not going to end anyone's life.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Overall, I don't mind people that are selling games to other people as long as it's a private practice. But when it's becoming a business, creators should really be involved.

This is essentially the publisher's perspective. Strictly speaking it makes sense for publishers to be up in arms when their biggest client reformats their entire business to be based on selling used games over new ones.

Several parts of GS/EB business practice - such as offering to "downgrade" at the counter, minimalizing the visual difference between new/used, and stacking used games in high traffic areas - are legal practices, but also ones that seem very clearly against the interests of the publishers who sold them games in the first place. (The developer is inevitably stuck in the same boat, relying on sales figures to keep them afloat.) Their ability to react to supply and demand so quickly is the primary reason for the lackluster trade-in values you see today.

There really isn't an easy comparison to this elsewhere, as far as I can tell. Bookstores aren't as unified or as interested in going to such lengths to promote used products. Dealerships are essentially an equivalent to digital distribution, being manufacturer driven. Furniture is too decentralized.

Consumer feedback is good to keep both sides in line, though I expect the fighting to continue to be dirty until GameStop's position becomes compromised.

 

[zaidr]

Are you selling the game to your friend for $5 less than the price of a new copy? I think not. Was your friend on his way to Best Buy to buy a new copy? Again, I think not.
It's not the same as Gamestop, then.

This sounds more like a problem with Gamestop/EB and their sleazy used game business, than an aversion to consumer freedoms in general. I know! Fuck Gamestop. If devs are so worried about Gamestop, do the devs have to clout with them to demand something be done? Or at the least, come together and pressure that retailer as a collective?

 

[Iain Howe]

I think the games industry is the only one that treats there paying customers like criminals and with mindsets like this its set to a path of doom. You see a lot of resistance now against the draconic DRM situation on the PC side (spore 1 star user reviews on amazon) and developers threatening paying customers with dlc on the console side. They are about to drive the industry against the wall at full speed maybe they are building up there own bubble which will burst some day and we have a situation again like in the 80s. But the solution is easy: the customer is the king and not your enemy.

Actually if it does happen it'll be worse than the 80's. If one of the 'big boys' went under now it would take about a third of the industry with it. There would be an enormous upheaval, and you'd see the remaining companies getting even MORE risk adverse.

You'd be in an interesting position where hardware limitations no longer set the limit on what could be done with the hobby.

 

[PataHikari]

I think the games industry is the only one that treats there paying customers like criminals and with mindsets like this its set to a path of doom.

Nah the music industry is the same and sales have been doing down for ages.

 

[Version 3.0]

Are you selling the game to your friend for $5 less than the price of a new copy? I think not. Was your friend on his way to Best Buy to buy a new copy? Again, I think not.
It's not the same as Gamestop, then.

Well, there's an argument without substance. Are you actually implying that if Gamestop sold its used games for less--therefore inticing more people to buy used--that this would be "okay" while now it isn't?

And yes, certainly my friend could have been about to buy it new when I offered to sell him my game. Most likely scenario, if you ask me. Not that it matters. I have the right to sell my game, to Fred down the block, to John on Ebay, to Jane at my yard sale, to the pawn shop, to another member of GAF, or to Gamestop. And then they have the right to sell it, for whatever price they can get for it.

 

[ultim8p00]

Instead of screwing the consumers, how about companies just require Gamestop to give 10% to 20% of what it sells in used copies to the devs if the used price is higher than 40% the retail price? I mean, it's either that or kill the used-games business altogether, so I'm sure they'll ultimately give in.

80% of $50 is still quite a lot no?

What do you guys think?

 

[tmarques]

There is no "issue" unless you want to call GREED an issue.

I was wondering about that. I know a lot of people here agree developers are victimized by rentals and the 2nd-hand market, but every year the industry proves to have been more profitable than the last.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

As a PC gamer, I agree with him. Why only we can't trade our games and buy used? Console gamers should suffer as much as we do :lol

PC games are a reasonable price anyway though.

 

[Version 3.0]

This sounds more like a problem with Gamestop/EB and their sleazy used game business, than an aversion to consumer freedoms in general. I know! Fuck Gamestop. If devs are so worried about Gamestop, do the devs have to clout with them to demand something be done? Or at the least, come together and pressure that retailer as a collective?

Sure, they could band together and stop selling to Gamestop, or just do so individually. The problem is, Gamestop is the #1 retailer of new games. As I said earlier, the likely reason Gamestop is so big is because of the used game business. It's most certainly the reason they survived while other game retailers didn't. Publishers don't want to admit that. They want to have it both ways.

 

[..pakbeka..]

It is your problem. The longer the model continues to become more and more unworkable the worse effect it will have on our hobby.

good games will still sell and me made, and even if we have a new crash like the 80's I'd at last be able to play the hundreds of old games I wanted to but never had the time


oh, and publishers that want me to pay full price (which is even more expensive here) for a 10 hour long game with no replayability can suck a dick, the ones that never reprint their games at lower prices can too

 

[clo1_2000]

Yeah, there are a lot of games I don't quite get around to finishing...so whatever. I just don't see why the games industry thinks they are so different from movies and music. When it comes to protecting content they want to be treated like the music and movie industry; no government regulation for their mature content.

But, when it comes to realizing their profits, all of the sudden they no longer want to adhere to the same model as music and movies. I can still buy CDs and trade them in. I can buy DVDs and trade them in. I don't see where the video game industry should be treated any differently.

Now, I know the music industry and movie industry can supplement their incomes with other sources of revenue, but games seems to be going that route with in-game advertising.

Just for clarification; I work for decent sized gaming company.

 

[Version 3.0]

Instead of screwing the consumers, how about companies just require Gamestop to give 10% to 20% of what it sells in used copies to the devs if the used price is higher than 40% the retail price? I mean, it's either that or kill the used-games business altogether, so I'm sure they'll ultimately give in.

80% of $50 is still quite a lot no?

What do you guys think?

I think that's no different. Publishers can't dictate terms like that, and we're all better off for it. I can't put this any plainer: the used game business is legally and morally our right. Publishers have no say in it. They've already been paid for every used game that is sold.

 

[rareside]

The thing I find hilarious is that Gamestop and friends have gotten even RICHER this gen with the prices of games going up on average of $10/game, and they didn't even have to change a thing in their business model.

So instead of selling a used game for $45, they get to sell 'em at $55 now.

I wish I had put some stock in GStop back in the day.

As for the OP, I think we'll start to see developers put more incentives into buying new... We already are seeing the beginning. These micro transactions that litter online gaming now are just the beginning.

 

[Hunter D]

I would support something like this if game prices dropped to $40-45.

 

[aeolist]

It sounds so obvious but absolutely nobody understands it

ANTAGONIZING YOUR MARKET DOES NOT MAKE THEM LIKE YOU

 

[PseudoKirby]

I thought this was about making ALTERNATIVE ending DLC... and I am all for that....

so this guy is trying to think of ways to hinder the enjoyment that gamers get compared to trying to add to the enjoyment...

 

[TOAO_Cyrus]

yeah, cause no one is going to play the game used for 10 bucks and then youtube the ending. way to think this out.

Actually I'm sure most people would just pay the extra 3$-5$ and get a new copy. Its not like Gamestop is actually giving anyone a good deal on all those used games.

 

[scitek]

I don't know, couldn't GS and other stores just come to some sort of gentleman's agreement that says they won't take trade-ins on any game until its been out for a month or two? One of the reasons movies don't have this problem is cuz of their 4 month initial exclusivity to cinemas.

 

[Chrange]

It sounds so obvious but absolutely nobody understands it

ANTAGONIZING YOUR MARKET DOES NOT MAKE THEM LIKE YOU

They can afford to antagonize the used-games market, they weren't making money off them anyway. More importantly, people who buy the game new see the map pack or exclusive character or whatever they get added in as a BONUS, and are happier to have purchased it.

 

[lethial]

I'm not sure if I support this idea.

 

[Ponn]

They can afford to antagonize the used-games market, they weren't making money off them anyway. More importantly, people who buy the game new see the map pack or exclusive character or whatever they get added in as a BONUS, and are happier to have purchased it.

Actually in the "developers world" I wouldn't be happy because I would be unable to trade any games in to afford that new game with the exclusive character.

Unfortunately unlike these developers who can afford to live in California and buy all their games new I can only affor 2 or 4 games a year.

 

[ultim8p00]

I think that's no different. Publishers can't dictate terms like that, and we're all better off for it. I can't put this any plainer: the used game business is legally and morally our right. Publishers have no say in it. They've already been paid for every used game that is sold.

Well, without the product, there wouldn't be a used game business. Imagine that you write a book, and instead of 10 people buying that book, 1 person buys it and shares it with 10 people. You gotta at least agree that it kinda sucks. I mean, 10-20% isn't THAT much, they still get to keep what, 80%? They take an $59.99 game and sell it for $54.99. That's ridiculous! They are making a huge profit off the dev's hardwork. I mean imagine if you sell your book for $10 and someone buys it and sells it for $9.50 and calls it used? They are making a 95% profit ON YOUR OWN WORK, and they didn't do shit! I see something really wrong with that. When the game hits about $30 to $35 they can start keeping the whole thing. That's still like 50%.

 

[PataHikari]

Well, without the product, there wouldn't be a used game business. Imagine that you write a book, and instead of 10 people buying that book, 1 person buys it and shares it with 10 people.

Tell me, have you ever heard of a public library?

 

[maniac-kun]

Well, without the product, there wouldn't be a used game business. Imagine that you write a book, and instead of 10 people buying that book, 1 person buys it and shares it with 10 people. You gotta at least agree that it kinda sucks. I mean, 10-20% isn't THAT much, they still get to keep what, 80%? They take an $59.99 game and sell it for $54.99. That's ridiculous! They are making a huge profit off the dev's hardwork. I mean imagine if you sell your book for $10 and someone buys it and sells it for $9.50 and calls it used? They are making a 95% profit ON YOUR OWN WORK, and they didn't do shit! I see something really wrong with that. When the game hits about $30 to $35 they can start keeping the whole thing. That's still like 50%.

thats thinking in short term profits some of the 10 people that also have read the book will buy the next one from that author if they liked it and they will talk with others about that great book that they have read

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

This could effectively kill piracy and 2nd hand market.

It's not a bad idea, if a bit extreme, and you would have to sorta realize you would lose sales from people who don't connect online.

no it wouldnt they'd just crack whatever encryption is on the dlc and remake the iso with it intact.

 

[bachikarn]

People actually are against used games? wtf

 

[ultim8p00]

thats thinking in short term profits some of the 10 people that also have read the book will buy the next one from that author if they liked it and they will talk with others about that great book that they have read

What's stopping them from just doing the same thing again? And this doesn't really apply to people, as when someone buys a game, they buy it with their money, and they are free to sell it again.

With Gamestop, they buy a game, sell it, then buy it again, then sell it. I guess it's fair game, since no one is really forcing anyone to buy/sell the games, since you can look at GameStop as a kind of "person" too. But at the same time, I look at it from the dev's point of view and it just doesn't feel right. Imagine if all those people buying used bought my game. If I made something that is so good that so many people want it, why shouldn't I get my reward? I guess that's how I think of it.

 

[Opiate]

A lot of people see this problem growing - remember, used games aren't the source of all the industry's woes, they're a symptom. We have a fundamentally broken business model (of which used games is just a part), with game development costs reaching that of a lot of movies but having nowhere near the audience or number of revenue sources to justify that cost.

With any luck, a transition to an alternate business model will be smooth and not involve the collapse of any publishers or studios. How likely that is at this point, I don't know.

What that alternate business model could be is still largely up in the air - replacing brick and mortar with 100% digital distribution? Heading towards a single, open console standard to lower development costs? Simply developing smaller, cheaper games? Any and all of these have been suggested, and they each have obvious benefits to the developers and publishers, as well as consumers.

Regardless, we can't continue this trend of "Bigger, better, and more badass." It isn't financially sustainable. Our audience is teeny, our costs are rising astronomically, our business model is broken, and we continue to drive ourselves towards a breaking point, not away from it. This isn't chicken-little-ism, this isn't me decrying the end of times for games as an industry. It's saying that change is necessary - we're having difficulty treading water as it is, and things are going to just get worse if we continue believing we're doing nothing wrong.

Excellent post, Campster. I agree with everything here.