Support NeoGAF

[Eusis]

It's pretty easy to explain... Consumers only care about their own needs, not the needs of the people they consume from. The consumers don't care that the Earthbound games are a legal minefield, only that they never come to the US which peeves the fans of that series off. They don't care that Steam has DRM which means you can't resell them and need to hope Valve stays in business, only that it sells games for cheap during their sales. If enough consumers and retailers out there care that they can't resell their physical games and there are enough alternative options out there like say Sony not going that route, then Microsoft's rumored plan to kill the used game market will fail and developers will have to deal with keeping that market around.

Well, my stance (being able to get games as I wish no matter how long ago they were released) is looking out for my own interests too, I'm just thinking of the long term, while most are thinking only of the here and now whent hey argue this. If only the here and now mattered I'd probably be largely ambivalent as I rarely buy anything recently released used and looking back would not be a factor.

Yes, I am being "willfully obtuse" because I feel like you are framing very similar situations in two different lights and it is a little ridiculous. The package includes a copy for PS3 and a copy for Vita, to say that you are not buying the Vita version is ridiculous (IMO of course). You are buying a game that has the ability to be played on two different platforms. Do you also think that when you purchase a Blizzard PC game you should be able to give/sell someone else the disc and continue playing as long as they only install the Mac version of the game? (In case you were wondering, Blizzard is notorious for including both PC and Mac version of the game on the same disc).

Selling the PS3 version and keeping the Vita version IMO is exploiting the technical shortcomings of the current system. This shortcoming will most likely be rectified with the new consoles. Maybe once they can be certain that people won't be able to split up any offerings like these we'll see a lot more of them, which would be great for the consumer.

Actually, I believe JUST the PS3 version is $40 on PSN. If I'm remembering right, then it's basically the same as those blu-ray or 3D blu-ray releases that include other versions (regular blu-ray, DVD, digital download.) You're getting multiple versions because you're paying a premium, you could if you cared that much to have both physically sell off the code for $20 or whatever to someone that wants it, then buy the Vita cart for $40.

There would have to be something in place to make up for no more used games that would benefit consumers somehow. I have no idea what that may be though. I can't see day one prices being lower or anything, that's just not realistic.

I'm thinking the idea of benefiting the customers is that you register a game and are free to redownload it as you wish, so if you lost the disc or don't want to use it then it own't matter. If they DON'T do this and they go with a more convoluted on-disc system that doesn't give you the freedom to keep a game on your account for forever then this will be horrifically anti-consumer and must die, even this in it's current speculated form is arguably just the end point when DD fully takes over rather than some nightmarish alternate path. Well, maybe not the always online part, that's bullshit on a closed platform and with the internet as it is now.

 

[Cru Jones]

Yeah, I remember having to pay fees to Sega and Nintendo to play used games on their systems when I was a kid too.


The nature of digital download (you're not paying for a tangible product) makes it hard to figure out a system that allows the consumer to sell a digital copy - however, I'd be completely interested in exploring a digital marketplace for used game sales as well!

I don't disagree with you. I 100% would like to see this happen as well, I would just hope that the content creators get a piece of the sale when that deactivated key has been sold again.

At the end of the day, I think you should be able to sell your games, I just think that when someone buys a used game that it is actually replacing a new sale. Maybe not every time, but I think that it's enough to be substantial. When someone goes in and buys COD BLOPS2 for $55 instead of $60, I truly believe that this constitutes a lost sale for the dev/pub.

I also agree that used games do drive the purchase of new games, but I think it is doing more harm than good. To use the typical 3 for 1 trade in "deal" that GameStop implements that usually means that for every new game being purchased with this new method, there are three games that are going back into the market, three used games that will directly replace the purchase of three new copies.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm just assuming that it is at this point. I don't buy that always online bullshit, though. My guess is each game will require online authentication, just like PC games. Once it's been authenticated, it'll be free to play on or offline. I also think that Microsoft wouldn't make this move unless they knew that Sony planned on following suite. My guess is publishers really lobbied hard for this to be implemented during the initial design phase of the new consoles.

Yeah I agree about the always online part. With as spotty as Xbox Live can be (for me at least), it'd be a disaster.

I'm thinking the idea of benefiting the customers is that you register a game and are free to redownload it as you wish, so if you lost the disc or don't want to use it then it own't matter. If they DON'T do this and they go with a more convoluted on-disc system that doesn't give you the freedom to keep a game on your account for forever then this will be horrifically anti-consumer and must die, even this in it's current speculated form is arguably just the end point when DD fully takes over rather than some nightmarish alternate path.

Yeah at that point I wouldn't even want discs any more. There'd be no reason for them, practically.

 

[3rdamention]

I agree with the op and said it in the Durango thread. Games may need an activation to play them. I think the activation will cost more than the $10 online passes cost now to drive down the profit Used Games Stores make. Games may offer a 1 to 2 hour trial period so you can take them to a friends house.............maybe one time lol..


Now the question is who is going to do it. Microsoft? Sony? Both?

 

[SneakyStephan]

Ok, come on, since when does $40-$38 = $0?

Fine, offer me a 50 dollar version of the game that I can trade, give to my friends, lend to others, take along to family to play on their system, let the kids play on their own console in their bedroom and a 2 dollar version that only works on my system.

Everybody wins.
Glorified rental games for glorified rental prices.

I grew up doing all of the above all of the time , I've never sold a game to a store or bought a game second hand from a store (because it's a hilarious ripoff and retailers are not entitled to getting a piece of the gaming budget pie twice or more in my opinion, others can do whatever the fuck they want).
I'll always buy the console that allows me to do those things, and the one that can't I'll probably buy second hand with the games already on it for peanuts after a few years if I REALLY want it that bad (which I doubt would happen, I'm not a child anymore I can go without gran turismo or tekken without thinking the world just ended) .

I don't even have to disagree on used game sales (at least in the way gamestop and other chains do it) cost the industry a lot of money, they are parasites since for every 40 dollars someone spent on a second hand game the original owner only got 15-20 at most to (potentially, I can indulge the pro second hand people with this without hurting the argument) go back to a new game.
Thing is, it's up to the consumer wether or not he cares about that ,and up to them to choose wether they want to piss away their budget on gamestop.

Stepping on consumer's rights and standards to stop gamestop and co from leeching on their monies is like punching the farmer when the fox is stealing chickens.
I wish a swift bankrupcy to any company that tries this stunt so that a new, less shitty company may take up the market space that opens up.

 

[Eusis]

I also agree that used games do drive the purchase of new games, but I think it is doing more harm than good. To use the typical 3 for 1 trade in "deal" that GameStop implements that usually means that for every new game being purchased with this new method, there are three games that are going back into the market, three used games that will directly replace the purchase of three new copies.

This depends on what they're even buying though. It's possible people just go in to be cheap and buy a bunch of older titles they missed out on, that's what I did when I took advantage of this (Eternal Darkness, Yakuza, and Space Channel 5... though I ended up returning that one to get Tales of Legendia), and it probably is the primary intent of these sales, to clear out older stock. Especially as those deals always depend on newer games being there, and I imagine it's VERY spotty for getting the newest and hottest unless it's shit, and that's simply not going to see many new sales period.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I don't disagree with you. I 100% would like to see this happen as well, I would just hope that the content creators get a piece of the sale when that deactivated key has been sold again.

At the end of the day, I think you should be able to sell your games, I just think that when someone buys a used game that it is actually replacing a new sale. Maybe not every time, but I think that it's enough to be substantial. When someone goes in and buys COD BLOPS2 for $55 instead of $60, I truly believe that this constitutes a lost sale for the dev/pub.

I also agree that used games do drive the purchase of new games, but I think it is doing more harm than good. To use the typical 3 for 1 trade in "deal" that GameStop implements that usually means that for every new game being purchased with this new method, there are three games that are going back into the market, three used games that will directly replace the purchase of three new copies.

To me this just reminds me of the tipping debates that are so frequent in OT. You're asking the customer to subsidize the publisher to no one's benefit but the publisher. Once you own a game you can't ever hope to fully recoup your losses if you sell it, because no one's going to buy a $55 used game and then pay a $10 fee when it's being sold new for $60. That string is always going to be attached. If publishers feel ripped off by used game sales only profiting GameStop, they should work out a deal with GameStop to get a cut of used game sales for their games, they shouldn't strongarm console manufacturers into disabling used games. It's an extreme solution to something that isn't really even a problem. Used games aren't the reason why THQ closed its doors.

And I'd wager most used games traded in for those deals at Gamestop are 2-3 years old and have probably had 98% of their New sales squeezed out anyway.

 

[Game Guru]

Well, my stance (being able to get games as I wish no matter how long ago they were released) is looking out for my own interests too, I'm just thinking of the long term, while most are thinking only of the here and now whent hey argue this. If only the here and now mattered I'd probably be largely ambivalent as I rarely buy anything recently released used and looking back would not be a factor.

Well, my own interest is that I generally get more enjoyment out of retro games and indie games than the big budget AAA releases. Right now, most of my focus concerning that is towards PC because of various deals that PC digital distributors can do. Outside of Nintendo, fighting games, and JRPGs, there isn't really a draw towards the consoles for me anymore now that they are more like PCs. Save for Final Fantasy and fighting games, those genres are likely to be on Nintendo systems.

 

[PBMax]

This nonsense would also kill game collecting.

In 10 years, when you want to get a copy of that game you used to love or never got to try, you'd be out of luck.

 

[Rorschach]

they dont go to Toyota for free repairs. Warner Bros. has probably already made you pay for that movie twice already.

people who buy used games that used the online mode use the publisher's resources for "free"

Not getting into these clumsy analogies, BUT did you know that you can pass on your warranty to the person you're selling it to? Most warranties will cover the car until it expires, which means the next owner can go to Toyota for free repairs. It's an added bonus if you're ever trying to sell your car. Just FYI.

 

[Cru Jones]

To me this just reminds me of the tipping debates that are so frequent in OT. You're asking the customer to subsidize the publisher to no one's benefit but the publisher. Once you own a game you can't ever hope to fully recoup your losses if you sell it, because no one's going to buy a $55 used game and then pay a $10 fee when it's being sold new for $60. That string is always going to be attached. If publishers feel ripped off by used game sales only profiting GameStop, they should work out a deal with GameStop to get a cut of used game sales for their games, they shouldn't strongarm console manufacturers into disabling used games. It's an extreme solution to something that isn't really even a problem. Used games aren't the reason why THQ closed its doors.

And I'd wager most used games traded in for those deals at Gamestop are 2-3 years old and have probably had 98% of their New sales squeezed out anyway.

In these types of threads I never like saying that someone is just outright wrong, but in this case you are. Games must trade in for a certain value (typically at least $8). Games that are more than a year old typically don't trade for that much. Also, for some promotions you can only trade in games off a selected list, the games on these lists are usually very recent or games that hold their value (such as Nintendo's games).

Pubs have tried to work out deals with GameStop who have, within their rights, refused to pay pubs any proceeds from used games. Now they will be implementing a system that forces either GameStop or the end user to pay them a cut.

In a perfect world, GameStop and all other retailers would be able to unlock these used copies before they resell them for a fee and eliminate any steps that the end user would need to take and make it as seamless as possible.

As for a taking games to a friends house the solution might be as simple as signing in with your psn/live ID to be able to play it.

 

[Cru Jones]

This nonsense would also kill game collecting.

In 10 years, when you want to get a copy of that game you used to love or never got to try, you'd be out of luck.

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

It is easier than its ever been to be able to play older games that you may have missed and you don't have to pay $200 for that ultra rare game, you can just pay $5-$10. That's pro consumer if I've ever heard it.

 

[Eusis]

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

It is easier than its ever been to be able to play older games that you may have missed and you don't have to pay $200 for that ultra rare game, you can just pay $5-$10. That's pro consumer if I've ever heard it.

It's mostly great on PC, but there are some omissions, and it's worse on consoles. Granted I imagine most games from this point forward will keep DD in mind when ironing out contracts, but there can always be problems that result in game delisting. And not just crappy ones no one cares about but stuff like NWN2.

Actually on that note I'm glade you didn't list GameFly. I got NWN2 through D2D along with the second expansion, and they put them up for download only to take them away AGAIN when it was getting delisted all over the place. At least there's GOG, but GameFly's exactly why DD is feared.

 

[Neuromancer]

If you want to put a corporations best interest in front of yourself as a consumer, be my guest. Everyone that has your mindset should send them a cheque so they can make as much money as they can since you are so concerned about there financial state. I think this would be a good scenario to offset the "leeches" who want to keep used games.

Everyone wins!

Personally I like to tithe a portion of my salary to EA, Activison, Ubisoft and Take Two. It's the only way to be sure their CEOs' children don't starve. I only regret I didn't do more for THQ. =(

 

[orznge]

"It's important that some shareholder that I do not and will not ever know, who could not give less of a fuck about me, gets a larger quarterly bonus."

 

[Sixfortyfive]

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

It is easier than its ever been to be able to play older games that you may have missed and you don't have to pay $200 for that ultra rare game, you can just pay $5-$10. That's pro consumer if I've ever heard it.

I dunno. Just from glancing at my shelf, I can spot a few dozen games worth keeping that haven't been re-released at all in over 10 years.

You have a very short-sighted perspective on things.

 

[faceless007]

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

It is easier than its ever been to be able to play older games that you may have missed and you don't have to pay $200 for that ultra rare game, you can just pay $5-$10. That's pro consumer if I've ever heard it.

This is utterly wrong to extrapolate to the consoles in about five different ways, and I'm surprised you don't see the flaws in your logic.

First off, combining PC services into console services is disingenuous. The PC's open nature is what allows it to have so many different competing storefronts, which have different games on different services with different packages. By contrast, each console will have one and only one storefront, and we're entirely reliant on how much MS or Sony care about any given title to make it available. If they don't think it worth the effort, they won't release the games. Making the ability to enjoy back catalog titles entirely dependent on the good graces of a first party is not pro-consumer.

Second, while you might think it strengthens your point to list many of the PC stores, there are games on Steam not on Gamersgate, games on Gamersgate not on Impulse, games on Impulse not on Steam, etc.; no store has anywhere close to a comprehensive backlog of all notable PC games (and it's laughable you used Origin as an example at all). And there are many PC games not available on any of them for whatever reason; I've bought several PC games in the last year on disc, only available used or through third-party resellers, that a are not available anywhere digitally. If not even Steam can do it, what makes you think MS or Sony will?

Third, you really shouldn't hold up PSN or Xbox Live as good examples of back catalogs. given their relatively high prices, the relatively low number of back catalog titles actually released on each of them, the frequent bugginess of their releases, and the account limitations imposed on digital content. There is no reason to expect any of these to meaningfully improve next gen.

Fourth, your entire argument hinges on the presumption that the next gen consoles will have BC with older gens. We have little indication that this will be the case, and if it isn't, then obviously they won't have any DD back catalogs at all--or if they do, it will be up to publishers to make HD remakes for the new consoles, which few of them have the resources or the inclination to do for more than a handful of titles, and in any case that's just a good way to get us to buy the same game a second time anyway. This is not pro-consumer.

Fifth, DD stores are susceptible to license expirations and contract disputes, and games are often removed from those stores permanently due to them. The DKC games on Wii, any of EA's Lord of the Rings games, Activision's James Bond games, every single game on this list, many of the games wished for on GOG.com, are no longer available and in all likelihood will never be available on any DD service ever again. So my only option is used copies. Without them, those games are lost to the ether. This is not pro-consumer.

So while you may care so little for this medium's history and preservation and longevity that you are content to allow its archives to be maintained and distributed entirely by publishers and first parties, who have consistently demonstrated that they have the long-term business thinking of a 2001 Internet startup, the nickel-and-diming practices of a major airline, and as much interest in their own industry's history as Roger Ebert, I am not so trusting of their intentions or their commitment to anything that was released more than 6 months ago, let alone 6 years.

 

[Freshmaker]

"It's important that some shareholder that I do not and will not ever know, who could not give less of a fuck about me, gets a larger quarterly bonus."

That is exactly why I buy every game on the release lists and then I keep them in a box in my basement. The companies need that revenue.

 

[IrishNinja]

How am I going to buy rare/niche games 10 years after the fact if I can't buy used games? I wonder if everything would be required to be on the download service.

this is a big concern for me too, especially with licensed stuff - i.e., disney games on sega/nintendo, ferraris in outrun etc. pretty much everything essentially goes back in a vault, so people putting you onto a hidden gem (especially with mired rights) means you'd only be able to play it yourself via piracy.

like say, System Shock 2 or Grim Fandango right now, as far as digital ownership goes.

 

[PBMax]

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

It is easier than its ever been to be able to play older games that you may have missed and you don't have to pay $200 for that ultra rare game, you can just pay $5-$10. That's pro consumer if I've ever heard it.

You're assuming that all consoles will be backwards compatible in the future or that all previous gen games will be ported. Neither will happen, and soon after we get a new gen servers will be shutdown for the previous.

 

[Dunan]

Couldn't people just bring a copy of their game AND their console?

Yes. How else would I get around if public transport wasn't a viable option for me?

And for some of us, automobile ownership isn't a viable option. Lugging a bulky, heavy console with us whenever we want to play one of our games outside our home is totally unrealistic, to say the least.

And if that console ever breaks, and the publisher of any of the content on that console goes out of business, we customers should do... what, exactly?

 

[Jac_Solar]

This nonsense would also kill game collecting.

In 10 years, when you want to get a copy of that game you used to love or never got to try, you'd be out of luck.

This is also a very important point. I think there are some gamers that would lose at least some interest in gaming overall if they couldn't put them up on a shelf.

The sense of ownership and satisfaction of gathering a collection might eventually become a thing with digital games, but not until services have proven considerably more reliable over a longer period of time.

The best digital service for games is probably Steam at the moment, and even that isn't a great service -- there are lots of installation restrictions and rules, you may be banned for whatever reason (And lose access to your entire library.), or if you uninstall a game for whatever reason, and want to download it again, you're relying on Steam to still have it, and so on.

A closed platform digital service will most likely be far worse, especially in regards to online services for games. What happens if a game isn't popular enough, or if a sequel to a game gets released and the majority of the gamers moves over to that?

EA didn't even bother to fix a simple authentication issue for Mercenaries 2 for several years (I don't know if they've fixed it yet.), with lots and lots of complaints on the net. It prevented people from even playing it offline/single player.

They also shut down servers of games that aren't deemed popular enough to maintain.

While that is somewhat besides the issue of the no used/rental games console question, it will probably happen far more often if such a console releases.

Every single publisher that releases a game should be legally required to maintain multiplayer and content servers for 10 years if they claim any sort of online availability through official channels, and then modify the online part to permit p2p connections (As well as menus that support it, of course.) if they don't want to host the servers anymore after 10 years.

If they have offered the game any sort of patches or DLC, they should also be legally required to maintain those servers for 10-20 years. If they wanted to avoid that, they'd obviously have to make sure they ship a fully polished game, and release the patches/dlc on a new disc -- but, obviously, it would have to be a significant amount of content to warrant a new disc release, like an expansion pack.

If they fail to do so, they could be sued/fined etc.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Couldn't people just bring a copy of their game AND their console?

Honestly, you really are kind of clueless.

If you can't swap discs between consoles freely, that greatly limits the number of usable hardware/software units in a tournament setting, especially when multiple games are involved at a major event. Not to mention making it a logistical clusterfuck regardless. And most of the copies of games in majors are picked up used for cheap.

And if the required online authentication rumors pan out, that makes large-scale gatherings a potential nightmare for what should be obvious reasons.

DLC and downloadable games are already enough of a pain in the ass to deal with as-is. Can't count the number of stations I've seen with missing characters or missing patches.

 

[GraveRobberX]

All I know is used games go away, watch the industry shrivel up

The main proponents behind this are those big ass publishers, which will make out like fucking bandits

Do you really think a start up will have any chance to get some leeway into the market

Budget skyrocketing, tech improving at an outstanding rate, marketing, and if the game doesn't hit sales target, oh boy
The big fish want that vast ocean for themselves, they don't want little fishes to nibble away
They want their money ocean and want gorge till their stomachs says full and still glutton for more

How about this as as scenario, in the not too distant future

EA Sports Game "2017", $80, On Disc DLC Day 1: $7.99-19.99 (shortcuts/ power ups, stat changing/boosting, extra advantage)
Pre-Order gets you the Online Pass of the Game (If you don't order it, LOL, $20 surcharge to $80)
No competition from others, so this is the only publisher offering such title
Day 30, 60, 90 DLC, most of content gutted from the game, priced exorbitantly high
(Assets are re-used from 2015 and just refined to a point to sell you the next version)
Oh by the way EA Sports Game "2015", "2016" servers are now closed
Oh and your copy can't be sold to anyone, thanks for playing!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Anyone advocating a system whereby gamers merely buy a licence for a game should note that the Court of Justice of the European Union has already ruled that the author of software cannot oppose the resale of a 'used' software licence. So the idea of pubs and devs getting paid for second, third etc sales is clearly not going to fly in Europe.

If you're interested in similar models already in place, check out a company called ReDigi, which deals in 'used' mp3s.

 

[jimi_dini]

That or you'll be able to buy it off gog.com, psn, Xbox live, eshop, steam, gamers gate, green man gaming, origin, impulse, etc.

Only if it was at least a bit popular and you also need to be lucky as well.

Find me Laura Bow 1+2 somewhere or Manhunter series. Maybe they will be on GOG some day, maybe not. Noone knows.

How hard would it be to put all those Sierra classics on GOG? Activison holds all the rights. If Activision cared about getting a bit of money, it wouldn't be a problem. But it seems they don't care at all. They don't need to press discs, print manuals or anything. Just allow GOG to sell all the old Sierra games. But they don't. Your only choices currently are buying used or pirate those games. And I for one choose buying used.

Or what about games from Irem. Those were already removed from PSN. You can't purchase them anymore. Yay digital downloads.

What about the Disney/Capcom classics on NES. Duck Tales. Not found on Virtual console. Why? Probably because licensing ran out and noone cares about getting those few bucks.

Pre-Order gets you the Online Pass of the Game (If you don't order it, LOL, $20 surcharge to $80)

I'm actually waiting for yearly online passes. Because playing the game too long via P2P is hurting the publisher. Matchmaking servers cost money you know. That way we will gladly keep up servers for 5 years in total.

 

[GraveRobberX]

I'm actually waiting for yearly online passes. Because playing the game too long via P2P is hurting the publisher. Matchmaking servers cost money you know. That way we will gladly keep up servers for 5 years in total.

Then when the game gets the next yearly update, publishers will just pull the plug to move the herd to the new one

What will be stopping them?

At least with used games you can play to a point and resell, this would be, Buy or You will never get to experience it!, times running out

 

[Kokonoe]

NeoGAF used Uproar!
NeoGAF caused an uproar!

 

[Caramello]

I can still buy NES, SNES, N64, PS1, GameCube, PS2, XBOX games and play them on those systems. If used games are somehow disallowed then games that are released on the next generation hardware that has those restrictions will be lost to the ages.

 

[Joseph Flemming]

Sony and Microsoft have actually decent account systems. That pessimism is unfounded.



Not only are you the 1% of America that has multiples of one console still active, but you don't load the same profile to those consoles, which makes you an even smaller fraction of that. IDK what to say in your case.

It would suck for me, not only do I have every platform, but I have several PS3's.. One for my three sons, it would suck if I couldn't lend them Sly or uncharted.

 

[megashock5]

Its basically people upset they can't sell their games back, or buy cheap used games. It IS a big cry session for nothing, though

It ISN'T for nothing, at least until I know for sure if games I buy new this gen will still work years from now. I don't want a shelf full of discs I purchased legitimately turned into coasters in 20 years just because some server isn't running.

For some of us, this isn't necessarily about cheaper games.

 

[Sanctuary]

It seems like people are focusing on the wrong subject. It's not used games giving more money to places like Gamestop and no more to the developer. I doubt the developer actually cares what anyone does after you've purchased a new copy of their game (aside from the obvious pirating).

What they don't want is for someone to buy a used game over a new game, simply because they only get more money if you bought it new. It doesn't matter if Gamestop or whoever is making money off of a used game. That's just what is being focused on because the developer can't counter the fact that their game might actually suck and isn't worth paying retail for. If they really wanted to put an end to this, they would cut all ties with Gamestop. But they won't, because Gamestop still makes them money. Just not enough apparently to satisfy the greedy corporates.

Where were all of these crying developers up until the past five years or so when people were renting games? Game rentals have been available since the mid 80s, and that's practically the same thing as selling used games. The games that are being rented out usually cost a store more upfront than regular retail copies, but then after a while they start making a profit; none of which was returned to the developer.

It's just pissing and moaning because now the devlopers have this entitlement syndrome. "Waaaah, our game cost 100 million to make and it didn't meet the necessary sales figures to turn a profit, waaaah, let's find a scapegoat!".

 

[Cru Jones]

It seems like people are focusing on the wrong subject. It's not used games giving more money to places like Gamestop and no more to the developer. I doubt the developer actually cares what anyone does after you've purchased a new copy of their game (aside from the obvious pirating).

What they don't want is for someone to buy a used game over a new game, simply because they only get more money if you bought it new. It doesn't matter if Gamestop or whoever is making money off of a used game. That's just what is being focused on because the developer can't counter the fact that their game might actually suck and isn't worth paying retail for. If they really wanted to put an end to this, they would cut all ties with Gamestop. But they won't, because Gamestop still makes them money. Just not enough apparently to satisfy the greedy corporates.

Where were all of these crying developers up until the past five years or so when people were renting games? Game rentals have been available since the mid 80s, and that's practically the same thing as selling used games. The games that are being rented out usually cost a store more upfront than regular retail copies, but then after a while they start making a profit; none of which was returned to the developer.

It's just pissing and moaning because now the devlopers have this entitlement syndrome. "Waaaah, our game cost 100 million to make and it didn't meet the necessary sales figures to turn a profit, waaaah, let's find a scapegoat!".

I think the big difference is that companies were able to make more money selling a game that was going to be rented and more importantly, they saw it as an advertising tool as well. When I was younger, I used to rent games to test them out before I made a purchase. For me at least, rentals used to lead to eventual purchases.

 

[Coconut]

Well once everything goes to downloadable only the used game market will dry up anyways.

 

[saunderez]

Well once everything goes to downloadable only the used game market will dry up anyways.

We're nowhere near that point which is why everyone is up in arms. When fast internet is ubiquitous then it might be an option. Right now it's not an option for a large amount of people .

 

[Codeblew]

.

The only group that this benefits is publishers/devs.

Well they need to make money to keep pushing out games. If they make more money, they will either used that to develop more games, take some risks on less popular genres or reduce prices (more sales, promotions, etc..). What you as a consumer should do is stop pre-ordering games. Don't let the devs think they have locked in money. Make them earn your dollar. The more pre-orders they get, the more likely they are to hold back content for day 1 DLC. When you pre-order you are pretty much telling the publisher that you are a weak, sissy, pushover lemming and that they can feel free to take you for granted.

Also don't buy games at release if you are just going to sit on them for 6 months before you play them. This is stupid. A lot of times, you could get the game at 50% or off if you just wait to buy games when you plan on playing them.

 

[SpoonyBard]

I bought an used game yesterday. It was nice.

 

[Diablos]

If I buy a used car, I guess according to some industry folks in the gaming world, I'm stealing it!

 

[Aaron Strife]

If I buy a used car, I guess according to some industry folks in the gaming world, I'm stealing it!

You wouldn't download a car, would you?

 

[SpoonyBard]

If I buy a used car, I guess according to some industry folks in the gaming world, I'm stealing it!

It would be interesting what would happen to new car sales if selling used cars was made illegal. Obviously the value of a new car would be much less to a customer, because it no longer has future resale value. If customers took that into account, they would be much more likely to buy as cheap cars as possible, and obviously use them much longer.

When it comes to games it's it's bit more difficult... obviously download prices should be lower than physical prices, but how much? Using physical discs can be a hassle, and load times higher, so people may think downloaded versions are "better"... But the lack of resale value is still there.

 

[Axiology]

If the rumors are true regarding the death of used game sales for the next gen Sony and Microsoft systems, I do feel like they'd make it a requirement that every game produced is also released on their online store. That way when they move on to the next console the game would still be playable, all you'd have to do is buy the new console!

That way they wouldn't be killing off game collecting also. Of course, then there's the sticky situation of the possibility that a company leaves the industry...

Of course, it is impossible to gauge just how bad this potentially would be for gamers, but for those trying to damage control the situation: in what way could this benefit the consumer?
I understand if they do go through with this it was never intended to be for the consumer's sake (and such an expectation would be silly), but there is nothing positive about this possibility. Nothing to offset the dozens and dozens of potential problems people have already raised about this idea. You people are crazy.

All I know is used games go away, watch the industry shrivel up

The main proponents behind this are those big ass publishers, which will make out like fucking bandits

Do you really think a start up will have any chance to get some leeway into the market

Budget skyrocketing, tech improving at an outstanding rate, marketing, and if the game doesn't hit sales target, oh boy
The big fish want that vast ocean for themselves, they don't want little fishes to nibble away
They want their money ocean and want gorge till their stomachs says full and still glutton for more

How about this as as scenario, in the not too distant future

EA Sports Game "2017", $80, On Disc DLC Day 1: $7.99-19.99 (shortcuts/ power ups, stat changing/boosting, extra advantage)
Pre-Order gets you the Online Pass of the Game (If you don't order it, LOL, $20 surcharge to $80)
No competition from others, so this is the only publisher offering such title
Day 30, 60, 90 DLC, most of content gutted from the game, priced exorbitantly high
(Assets are re-used from 2015 and just refined to a point to sell you the next version)
Oh by the way EA Sports Game "2015", "2016" servers are now closed
Oh and your copy can't be sold to anyone, thanks for playing!

I've actually been wondering for years now how anyone could think the possibility of vastly technologically superior next gen is a good thing. It seems to me if you extrapolate the woes of this era, with higher game prices, DLC up the ass, more expensive consoles, efforts towards curbing used game sales (online passes, for instance), rising production costs (leading to fewer games with smaller variation), and a plethora of studio closures, you get a pretty bleak future for the industry. While having consoles come a lot closer to the current age of PC gaming would be nice in many ways, I feel like people are ignoring the elephant in the room here.

 

[dankir]

This is a pretty dicey topic, I personally can't see M$ or Sony taking this stance. A Developer needs somebody like gamestop to get their games out to the user, but they also make most of their $ from used game sales.

The decision is too black and white, I can some sort of licensing or limitation on game installs, but not fully blocking used games.

Me and buddy discussed it on our youtube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmRpB3ge9Ng