#PS4NoDRM #XboxOneNoDRM || Now do you "Believe?"

Jaffe just posted this.
The only real solution I can see that would allow the developers to make money off used game sales that wouldn't impact the customer is them setting up their own used game store chain.

I'd have no issues if they set up a store chain like Gamestop and I just took my games to them instead of GS, but they won't do that.

I'd say they could work out a deal with GS for a cut, but there's no way GS will agree unless whatever MS does with the Xbone (and Sony follows) cuts GS' profit so much that the deal would be worth it. But since Nintendo isn't doing it as well, that option is kind of pointless.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
I agree with Jaffe.. some of the used game revenue should go back to the developers.. make it a 50-50 split... work with gamestop on this.
You know, this made me realize, why does Gamestop get so much exclusive DLC when so many publishers blame them for lost sales due to used games? You would think they would try to encourage people to buy from other retailers.
 
The only real solution I can see that would allow the developers to make money off used game sales that wouldn't impact the customer is them setting up their own used game store chain.

I'd have no issues if they set up a store chain like Gamestop and I just took my games to them instead of GS, but they won't do that.

I'd say they could work out a deal with GS for a cut, but there's no way GS will agree unless whatever MS does with the Xbone (and Sony follows) cuts GS' profit so much that the deal would be worth it. But since Nintendo isn't doing it as well, that option is kind of pointless.
That is awesome, i agree :)
 
I agree with Jaffe.. some of the used game revenue should go back to the developers.. make it a 50-50 split... work with gamestop on this.
This is what I'm fine with. Don't penalize the gamers for willing to pay however they're paying. Its definitely a far better solution than blaming piracy and gamers for them not meeting their "forecast". Its clearly our fault, right?!

Oh and as much as I love Jaffe, being the voice of reason is a far better way to approach this than being the voice of an asshole who abuses everyone left and right. I know people may hate questioning this but is he the ONLY GAF member who is so outright vocal and abusive towards the community and still posts here? He is reaching the douchebaggery level of David Dyack.
 
You know, this made me realize, why does Gamestop get so much exclusive DLC when so many publishers blame them for lost sales to do used games? You would think they would try to encourage people to buy from other retailers.
That's where all the smoke and mirrors bs comes in. They make a game. They give exclusive content to GameStop. They cry used games and now they want to get rid of it but all the while feeding the worst beast of the bunch
 
This should also be in the OP. Great points. Must be tweeted to the Sony executives.
I strongly disagree. When trying to broker compromise, you do not include a "fuck you we don't need you" message. Even if there are elements of truth, that is reserved for if they leave the bargaining table. You start by appealing to reason politely and firmly. You try to find ways for every party to win and not feel shafted.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
I strongly disagree. When trying to broker compromise, you do not include a "fuck you we don't need you" message. Even if there are elements of truth, that is reserved for if they leave the bargaining table. You start by appealing to reason politely and firmly. You try to find ways for every party to win and not feel shafted.
I'm with you on this. That post makes some incredible points but it's far too harsh for what we want to do.
 
I wish GAF would take that stance right now.

Edit: Actually, no, we need to keep letting BOTH MS and Sony know we don't want DRM.
Well the problem is that said quite a bit and some of was specific. Then, they doubled back while still leaving important details out. If they had any plans of working with Gamestop and getting money back to devs they should have said something; they would look way better than they do now.

They needed to come FULL details or say NOTHING at all about this.

The big problem I have with the 'fee' they talked about was that it sounded like it would be drive by them personally and not consumer driver. Gamestop's own market drives their prices and it's not totally consumer driver but things like Ebay let people sell their games with no middleman.

If they had a fee that WASn'T in addition to the used game purchase price and the developers got a cut of it, I would be fine with it.
 
Jaffe, In a perfect world, yeah. Once you throw greed into the mix it all falls apart. And we all know how the chips would fall.
True.
There is simply no perfect solution.

Even if chains had to pay license fee's with like 5-10$ the private trade would just get bigger.
There are way to many influential parts regarding the whole topic, I just don't see a perfect solution.
Besides I'll highly agree with http://www.ps4nodrm.com/ the text from faceless007.
 
I strongly disagree. When trying to broker compromise, you do not include a "fuck you we don't need you" message. Even if there are elements of truth, that is reserved for if they leave the bargaining table. You start by appealing to reason politely and firmly. You try to find ways for every party to win and not feel shafted.
I agree. Regardless of how good the points are, including comments like that make it sound more angry than this message is trying to be.
 
The used clothing market is getting out of control. Second hand stores are getting all the profits, shouldn't that money go to the designers and makers of the clothes? No. They received money for the original sale. The issue is not used games, gamers or Gamestop.
the problem is clothing stores don't sell second hand clothes. those are at separate stores.

picture this: a customer walks into Gamestop to buy a game. Sees a new one for $60, and a used one for $55. Economics says the consumer will pick the $55 one, even though its only $5 cheaper, because they know the quality is exactly the same (this would not apply to clothes since those deteriorate with wear). The difference is that from the $60 one the publisher/dev gets a cut, but they do not get it from the used copy at all, but Gamestop does.
 
I'm sorry but why? How many times exactly should they be paid for the work they've done?
Agreed. It's not like Car manufacturers get money back on each used car sold. Movies/TV shows are not getting money for used sales.... or books. Pretty much Video games is the only group that think they deserve money after the first sale.
 
the problem is clothing stores don't sell second hand clothes. those are at separate stores.

picture this: a customer walks into Gamestop to buy a game. Sees a new one for $60, and a used one for $55. Economics says the consumer will pick the $55 one, even though its only $5 cheaper, because they know the quality is exactly the same (this would not apply to clothes since those deteriorate with wear). The difference is that from the $60 one the publisher/dev gets a cut, but they do not get it from the used copy at all, but Gamespot does.
That is not to say a store could not exist that does both functions. I'm sure there are clothing stores out there with the "newest trends" and old/used clothes sold at 75%+ off.
 
Have the tweets gotten really slow for anyone else? the last two posts on my feed are 4 minutes apart. I'm asking because my computer is shit, so I don't know if I'm just not getting everything on time.

Edit: It figures that after I posted this the tweets suddenly started coming in again.
 
the problem is clothing stores don't sell second hand clothes. those are at separate stores.

picture this: a customer walks into Gamestop to buy a game. Sees a new one for $60, and a used one for $55. Economics says the consumer will pick the $55 one, even though its only $5 cheaper, because they know the quality is exactly the same (this would not apply to clothes since those deteriorate with wear). The difference is that from the $60 one the publisher/dev gets a cut, but they do not get it from the used copy at all, but Gamespot does.
Except for the fact that the $55 copy came from someone that already BOUGHT the $60 one, and turned around his $40 to buy another new game with that.

So instead of having spent $60x2 or $120, they only spent $100 towards new games. What a crime.
 
Jaffe just posted this.
It's horse-shit, that's what it is.

Should devs make money off used games? Legally it's not necessary. But practically, I see zero issues- ASSUMING IT DOES NOT HURT THE GAMER'S EXPERIENCE (other than gamers having to just get used to a system they are not used to)- for devs/publishers to try to get a cut of the used game market. You can argue that no other industry does such a thing but I would argue that right now with the used market there are folks- namely Gamestop- making boatloads of cash off used games so why in the world- ASSUMING the game biz finds a solve that makes customers happy- would the game biz not put into place a plan that will allow us to be the ones making the cash. SOMEONE has to make the cash off used games- why the hell NOT the folks making the dang games?
Says who? Retailers merely facilitate it, but most people would prefer selling it privately. In that example, the only one who makes money is the original seller who had already paid you.

Jaffe's entire stance on this issue can be summed up as follows:

GameStop make tons of money from pre-owned games (what he means to say, presumably, is they make too much money). Why cant we developers get a piece of that pie (read: a second piece of the pie, after selling you the game new)?

His comments come off purely as greed.
 
The manual kind. Which is why I said this is the last time I will be doing it (since it takes a long time to do the initial load before the copy and paste now)

Dedication I know. LOL.

Put @yosp or #ps4nodrm in search field. Made sure that all tweets were being displayed. Basically, kept scrolling down until the first tweet popped up regarding this (after the initial bonus round thread). Select all, copy to notepad to not copy the images and what not. Delete all text before the top most tweet.

Select all copy, paste in word.

Find all - whichever term (so for overall tweets to yosp, searched @yosp, for #ps4nodrm I'd put that in). Every single term matching it gets selected, cut, paste in another word document.

Find & replace that term in that document with whatever, and then the "replaced x amount of times" gives you the number of times that term was used. Reason why I did't post exact numbers is because some tweets post the hashtags multiple times.

Got to the point that I had to use multiple word documents to count the #ps4nodrm overall count due to the program I use not being able to fit in anymore characters (without any spaces in between) in the document.
Ahhh, you're insane good sir!

I've got access to some industry monitoring tools which have access to the Twitter Firehose, so if you want stats I can just pull them out periodically without too much effort.

Currently I've got

13,964 total tweets for #ps4nodrm. 8311 of those are tweets and 5653 are retweets.
Impressions total 9,328,867.
#ps4usedgames is the most used hashtag within those tweets at 6,748.
3544 #ps4nodrm tweets mention @yosp

I've got bucketloads more data, so if you're curious for something else hit me up. :D
 
the problem is clothing stores don't sell second hand clothes. those are at separate stores.

picture this: a customer walks into Gamestop to buy a game. Sees a new one for $60, and a used one for $55. Economics says the consumer will pick the $55 one, even though its only $5 cheaper, because they know the quality is exactly the same (this would not apply to clothes since those deteriorate with wear). The difference is that from the $60 one the publisher/dev gets a cut, but they do not get it from the used copy at all, but Gamespot does.
And? cry me a river. It's the persons choice to buy whatever they want. That shouldn't be and isn't a problem
 
The only real solution I can see that would allow the developers to make money off used game sales that wouldn't impact the customer is them setting up their own used game store chain.

I'd have no issues if they set up a store chain like Gamestop and I just took my games to them instead of GS, but they won't do that.

I'd say they could work out a deal with GS for a cut, but there's no way GS will agree unless whatever MS does with the Xbone (and Sony follows) cuts GS' profit so much that the deal would be worth it. But since Nintendo isn't doing it as well, that option is kind of pointless.
Sure, however if that is the case they better have a cash out option. What if I don't want to buy xbox games with my game credit. Perhaps I want to buy a Sony game instead. Pretty much destroys this idea.
 
Agreed. It's not like Car manufacturers get money back on each used car sold. Movies/TV shows are not getting money for used sales.... or books. Pretty much Video games is the only group that think they deserve money after the first sale.
-cars deteriorate with use.
-the average movie makes majority of its money through theater sales. There isn't really a market for used tickets >_>
-books are usually made by a single author, in some cases a few more. They are not multi-million dollar projects. they also deteriorate with use.

And? cry me a river. It's the persons choice to buy whatever they want. That shouldn't be and isn't a problem
really, cry you a river? thats what you got? I'm all for buying/selling used games, but I do not think Gamespot should get as much profit as they do for it. Thats the difference. If you sell privately a used game, you get all the money the buyer pays, and thats fine. But customers sell to gamespot at a rate that they are ripped off and Gamespot marks it up to make a huge profit.
 
I strongly disagree. When trying to broker compromise, you do not include a "fuck you we don't need you" message. Even if there are elements of truth, that is reserved for if they leave the bargaining table. You start by appealing to reason politely and firmly. You try to find ways for every party to win and not feel shafted.
Yeah I noticed that too that's why I deleted the 'tweeting' statement. Thanks for pointing to the right direction.
 
the problem is clothing stores don't sell second hand clothes. those are at separate stores.

picture this: a customer walks into Gamestop to buy a game. Sees a new one for $60, and a used one for $55. Economics says the consumer will pick the $55 one, even though its only $5 cheaper, because they know the quality is exactly the same (this would not apply to clothes since those deteriorate with wear). The difference is that from the $60 one the publisher/dev gets a cut, but they do not get it from the used copy at all, but Gamespot does.
Lower your costs, lower your MSRP, make games that are longer than 6 hours.

They're behaving as monopolies, but they're not! And there's no actual, legal reason as to why they should be!
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
Ahhh, you're insane good sir!

I've got access to some industry monitoring tools which have access to the Twitter Firehose, so if you want stats I can just pull them out periodically without too much effort.

Currently I've got

13,964 total tweets for #ps4nodrm. 8311 of those are tweets and 5653 are retweets.
Impressions total 9,328,867.
#ps4usedgames is the most used hashtag within those tweets at 6,748.
3544 #ps4nodrm tweets mention @yosp

I've got bucketloads more data, so if you're curious for something else hit me up. :D
You need someone artistically inclined to create an infographic for all this data.
 
-cars deteriorate with use.
-the average movie makes majority of its money through theater sales. There isn't really a market for used tickets >_>
-books are usually made by a single author, in some cases a few more. They are not multi-million dollar projects. they also deteriorate with use.
Does not change the fact that the game industry is the only one that wants to dismiss the first sale doctrine. That is not to say that the movie industry does not want to do it. However I don't see it happening any time soon. Impossible to lock down every device, and "piracy" of movies seems to off set any DRM they implement.

Piracy is not a good idea. However it is a reality of the world we live in.
 
Ahhh, you're insane good sir!

I've got access to some industry monitoring tools which have access to the Twitter Firehose, so if you want stats I can just pull them out periodically without too much effort.

Currently I've got

13,964 total tweets for #ps4nodrm. 8311 of those are tweets and 5653 are retweets.
Impressions total 9,328,867.
#ps4usedgames is the most used hashtag within those tweets at 6,748.
3544 #ps4nodrm tweets mention @yosp

I've got bucketloads more data, so if you're curious for something else hit me up. :D
That's more than I thought, cool to know.
 
-cars deteriorate with use.
-the average movie makes majority of its money through theater sales. There isn't really a market for used tickets >_>
-books are usually made by a single author, in some cases a few more. They are not multi-million dollar projects. they also deteriorate with use.
And game discs dont deteriorate with use?
 
You need someone artistically inclined to create an infographic for all this data.
Sure, the monitoring tool creates generates just some basic colorful bar / line graphs as it is (and some sweeeeet word clouds) but if someone wants to do something really fancy, then I'm willing to provide them with what they need.

Edit - http://visual.ly/ always do interesting ways of presenting infographics, for any interested arty people.
 
Lower your costs, lower your MSRP, make games that are longer than 6 hours.

They're behaving as monopolies, but they're not! And there's no actual, legal reason as to why they should be!
if you sell a game to gamespot for $20, and they sell it at $25-$30, thats fine. But they sell it for double that, sometimes more. I don't think that's fair.

also, yes, if price of games was $40 I would be okay with a no used games policy.
 
if you sell a game to gamespot for $20, and they sell it at $25-$30, thats fine. But they sell it for double that, sometimes more. I don't think that's fair.
That would have to imply they actually sold all the games at the higher price. They don't. It's like a pawn shop. They give you like 50% of what they will sell it for, if even that. Because there is a risk it wont sell or that it might not sell until its a lower price (possibly lower than what you traded it in for). It's not perfect.
 
Lower your costs, lower your MSRP, make games that are longer than 6 hours.

They're behaving as monopolies, but they're not! And there's no actual, legal reason as to why they should be!

this is interesting, because it suggests that what people want are longer games, when that's not necessarily true. also, lowering the MSRP doesn't solve the problem stated, but that probably doesn't matter to you
 
That would have to imply they actually sold all the games at the higher price. They don't. It's like a pawn shop. They give you like 50% of what they will sell it for, if even that. Because there is a risk it wont sell or that it might not sell until its a lower price (possibly lower than what you traded it in for). It's not perfect.
thats not the same across all games though. if you're selling two games that released in the same month GS will not give you the same amount for both. They put value into the titles that they know sell more. So you'll get less for the less popular game anyways.
 
if you sell a game to gamespot for $20, and they sell it at $25-$30, thats fine. But they sell it for double that, sometimes more. I don't think that's fair.
Don't sell it to Gamespot then. Use eBay. Use Amazon. Use your mom and pop store. Sell it directly to someone you know. Gamespot isn't the one trying to force an artificial monopoly, here.