• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Total Biscuit arguing for no used game sales

So Amazon, Origin, GMG or GOG don't exist? You don't understand a monopoly then.

No, they really don't. They are an inconvenience that try to force their way into the monopoly. GOG isn't really a competitor to Steam first of all since GoG is for old games only. Most of the other services you mentioned really prefer steamworks games that you can activate on steam as well. Having all your games in one location is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don't want more competition in PC gaming. If Origin failed tomorrow I would be celebrating.
 
Nothing in this wall of text is anything new or mind blowing. This is called doing business.

It wasn't supposed to be mind-blowing. It's supposed to illustrate the lengths a company will go to take advantage of not only the consumer, but also the publishers/suppliers. If you think that is called "doing business", you're right, but is it doing it the right way? No, it isn't. It has got to change. There are going to be some hard choices to make, and it's playing out in a pretty public way. The suppliers, the resellers, and the consumers are all going to lose if there is no compromise. The business is not sustainable as it is currently.
 
If the demand is high, why the immense margin? Why if I shop around can I actually buy big titles new, for less than the price Game charges for a week old used blockbuster?



How much evidence do you need when they commonly sell functionally identical versions of the same experience at different price-points? Which one do you think is going to sell better when the one labelled "new" offers absolutely no advantage to the buyer?

They buy games back from their customers to sell them on at a profit, not because they look good on their shelves.

Explain to me why retail conglomerates are somehow more noble than publishing conglomerates; Pursuit of profit is an equal imperative for both, yet apparently to you one can do no wrong, yet the other is Mammon incarnate.

Bold - I'm not sure what you are asking here. Consumers dictate demand, not the producers, they fill the demand.

Underlined - Huh? I've never once added morals into this or rights even, simply how markets function. It doesn't matter why they do what they do, they fill a demand, but that demand isn't outpacing new copies, because if they were those used copies would be scarce, because of the demand.
 
Because the people who created the art are more morally justified to that money and support than you or GameStop will ever be.

I know the law and the first-sale doctrine; there is a difference between what is most right and what is lawful.
You sent Pontiac a check when you traded in your Sunfire, right?

And, this cash ain't going to artists. You're pretty passionate about buying another island for Bobby Kotick.
 
Then you are in a tiny minority. To the point where outside eBay, where the hell can you even buy them used in a store?

Every store in my city that sells games, sells used games. Every store except supermarkets that sell used games sell used dvd's and blu-rays.
 
Explain to me why retail conglomerates are somehow more noble than publishing conglomerates; Pursuit of profit is an equal imperative for both, yet apparently to you one can do no wrong, yet the other is Mammon incarnate.
One services the price elasticity of demand and helps create liquidity for gamers as well as facilitating First Sale rights. The other is attempting to curtail property rights and possibly create a used game cartel in collusion with the very retail devils it blames for its problems.
 
Yes they are, and every one of them uses digital not retail as its primary sales channel. Funny that.

So then start making AAA titles exclusively digital, lets see if they get the same amount of volume they do, then, w/o physical copies. If that is what will fix the problem move to that model. We both know that wont happen, and the implications from this, alone, should be obvious to you why they dont.

Also, are you suggesting getting into box stores is cheap or easy, excluding big publisher?
 
Here is the obvious solution to the problem:

So lets say that Microsoft initiates a digital service that allows all of us to sell our used games. It is a open market system that allows people to put a price on their used game and Microsoft takes a percentage (10-20%) of all the sales. The publisher or game company also gets a chunk of that percentage (obviously determiend by Microsoft). Is this any different than what Gamestop is currently doing except for the fact that the publishers and game companies get NOTHING!!

I would LOVE a system like this.
 
Actually yes they are, this is how they maintain their massive margins on resold games.
They don't buy and sell to do consumers a favour, they do it because its enormously profitable. And given that consumers are both the supplier and the recipient of the product...



All wrong.

So a retailer attempting to raise margins is predatory, but a publisher attempting to raise margins isn't?

Of course Gamestop isn't in the business of doing their customers any favors. Of course Gamestop's customers aren't interested in doing Gamestop any favors either. Instead they are working together to create exchanges that are mutually beneficial. Consumers have many options for where they would like to buy and ssell used games. Gamestop has to compete with those.

As for your "All wrong", I hope you don't mind if I take the fact that you weren't able to actually respond to that at its face value.
 
This is their fault. The indy, iOS, Tablet, and other lower budget projects are growing exponentially.

Those games aren't comparable at all. AAA titles are held to a completely different standard.

What was the majority reaction to the visuals of COD: Ghosts?

Doesn't look next gen
If that's next gen I'm disappointed
looks current gen
looks like the same engine
and etc.

That's why dev costs are increasing. The industry is always trying to one up the last thing because we gamers demand it.
 
Here is the obvious solution to the problem:

So lets say that Microsoft initiates a digital service that allows all of us to sell our used games. It is a open market system that allows people to put a price on their used game and Microsoft takes a percentage (10-20%) of all the sales. The publisher or game company also gets a chunk of that percentage (obviously determiend by Microsoft. Is this any different than what Gamestop is currently doing except for the fact that the publishers and game companies get NOTHING!!

I would LOVE a system like this.

See I agree. I would love a second hand market where the publisher/dev gets a cut of the sales. Hopefully, Gamestop will crash and burn in a few years.
 
Those games aren't comparable at all. AAA titles are held to a completely different standard.

What was the majority reaction to the visuals of COD: Ghosts?

Doesn't look next gen
If that's next gen I'm disappointed
looks current gen
looks like the same engine
and etc.

That's why dev costs are increasing. The industry is always trying to one up the last thing because we gamers demand it.

So are you saying COD is going to do bad? Sorry but you are bringing up a red herring. there is no logical extension to what I said, and what you brought up. The conclusion that because the COD doesnt meet a random number of internet peoples expectations in no way precludes the idea that markets have to meet those random internet peopels demand, to sell there game. In fact, all evidence points to graphics not being the main cause for sales(all you would have to do is look at which console sells the most every generation).
 
Video games are the only media industry where it feels retailers actively try to undermine the purchasing of first hand product.

Except for every, single, other media industry.

The fact that the videogame industry has had such a problem with it speaks more to publishers inability to compete than it does anything else.

If the demand is high, why the immense margin? Why if I shop around can I actually buy big titles new, for less than the price Game charges for a week old used blockbuster?



How much evidence do you need when they commonly sell functionally identical versions of the same experience at different price-points? Which one do you think is going to sell better when the one labelled "new" offers absolutely no advantage to the buyer?

They buy games back from their customers to sell them on at a profit, not because they look good on their shelves.

Explain to me why retail conglomerates are somehow more noble than publishing conglomerates; Pursuit of profit is an equal imperative for both, yet apparently to you one can do no wrong, yet the other is Mammon incarnate.



Yes they are, and every one of them uses digital not retail as its primary sales channel. Funny that.

Any evidence at all would be a nice start.
 
Those games aren't comparable at all. AAA titles are held to a completely different standard.

What was the majority reaction to the visuals of COD: Ghosts?

Doesn't look next gen
If that's next gen I'm disappointed
looks current gen
looks like the same engine
and etc.

That's why dev costs are increasing. The industry is always trying to one up the last thing because we gamers demand it.

I don't think COD is a valid argument for anything.

It eschews innovation and visual progress and still sells to the lowest common denominator.

Every publisher is trying to capture that same success and is unable to.

Its the exception to the rule.
 
The movie industry isn't like the automobile industry. The automobile industry isn't like the music industry. The music industry isn't like whatever other industry somebody pulls out of their ass, yet the video game industry is a unique flower that deserves special rules tailored to its advantage. Killing consumer rights isn't going to change the fact that a monkey throwing darts could better decide what ips deserve AAA budgets and which don't. Any other company in any other field dies and its because they weren't good enough. A video game publishers dies and its used game sales. Gamestop killed THQ. Those bastards.
 
I will tell you what is really going on.

He is such a PC gamer that even when it comes to consoles he would defend no used games.
 
So are you saying COD is going to do bad? Sorry but you are bringing up a red herring. there is no logical extension to what I said, and what you brought up. The conclusion that because the COD doesnt meet a random number of internet peoples expectations in no way precludes the idea that markets have to meet those random internet peopels demand, to sell there game. In fact, all evidence points to graphics not being the main cause for sales(all you would have to do is look at which console sells the most every generation).

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. However, you are also highly underestimating it's significance. Graphics and art, being a visual medium, have a very large ability to "wow" the consumer. Heck, developer costs aren't also all about graphics. Call of Duty is a very expensive game to make that has nothing to do with it's graphical performance.
 
The industry is always trying to one up the last thing because we gamers demand it.
There goes that industry again, responding to the gamer's demands.

So very responsive.

I think the expectation here is that if you're going to copy something, you have to make your product BETTER than the thing you're copying. So budgets go up and studios die trying.

But they don't all *have* to spend gobs of cash trying to rip off the genre king. There are plenty of tastes out there not getting catered to because the budgets are too large and the games far too ambitious in their expectations.
 
See I agree. I would love a second hand market where the publisher/dev gets a cut of the sales. Hopefully, Gamestop will crash and burn in a few years.

Agreed. What are the complications of this system?

Does microsoft give actual money back to consumers or just MS points?

Is the percentage fair to publishers/game companies?

Would a system like this hurt new game sales? (i only think it would hurt new game sales i
f the game SUCKED and everyone was selling their "new" game back into the market....wouldn't this encourage new cames not to suck?)

Where do these digital copies go once the system is old? Do i get to keep it and continue playing it? Hopefully the CLOUD will not F this up....
 
Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

.
 
The movie industry isn't like the automobile industry. The automobile industry isn't like the music industry. The music industry isn't like whatever other industry somebody pulls out of their ass, yet the video game industry is a unique flower that deserves special rules tailored to its advantage. Killing consumer rights isn't going to change the fact that a monkey throwing darts could better decide what ips deserve AAA budgets and which don't. Any other company in any other field dies and its because they weren't good enough. A video game publishers dies and its used game sales. Gamestop killed THQ. Those bastards.

We live in a world where no developer or publisher has to be responsible, they've gotten their perfect scapegoats. Scapegoats so good consumers that would be hurt by kneeling to them actually take up their causes for them.
 
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. However, you are also highly underestimating it's significance. Graphics and art, being a visual medium, have a very large ability to "wow" the consumer. Heck, developer costs aren't also all about graphics. Call of Duty is a very expensive game to make that has nothing to do with it's graphical performance.

The large expansion of the indy and iOS/Android/Tablet growth for games says otherwise. I dont have to under or overestimate anything, all I have to do is look at the industry.
 
Ah, but you see, used music, cars, movies, TVs, tech, furniture, clothes, books and other stuff aren't the same as games.
But they are?

If the game industry cannot produce revenue like the music and film industry can, that's the publisher's problem.
 
FYE sells used DVDs and Blu-Rays. And you can also sell them to the store as well. I made $160 selling used DVDs and Blu-Rays to them a few weeks back. They also have a website you can sell your used DVDs/Blu-Rays to, if you're so inclined.

Thanks for this heads up, I am actually looking to offload almost my entire collection of DVDs and BluRays, mostly for space.

I will never sell my games, though.
 
I'll never get used to losing the chance to buy niche or limited games that i didn't buy new day one.

i'd love to buy a digital copy of xenoblade and not have to pay 200 dollars for it used on amazon

i know what your saying though

i just think they need to go one way or the other and stop dancing around it
 
For me it isn't about used games. It is about being able to play a game so long as I have the software and the hardware. Can I put a disc in the tray and play the game without relying on a third party? Yes, then I'll pay current prices. No, I'll pay no more than $20.
 
I don't think COD is a valid argument for anything.

It eschews innovation and visual progress and still sells to the lowest common denominator.

Every publisher is trying to capture that same success and is unable to.

Its the exception to the rule.

Perhaps, but i view COD as a game that has perfected the quick multiplayer aspect that a lot of users want in a game. They don't want complications or difficulty....they really do want a new coat of paint on a system that they understand. Not everyone wants Dark Souls that really takes a good amount of user effort to get into and perfect (NOT a casual game at all).

It is funny...a lot of investors complained that activision never got into the casual market. They don't realize that COD IS the casual market.
 
The large expansion of the indy and iOS/Android/Tablet growth for games says otherwise. I dont have to under or overestimate anything, all I have to do is look at the industry.

Indie games also cost 10 dollars. You will never get a AAA title with that sort of sale value. Oh and people actually want to play AAA games and are willing to pay the money to do so. If AAA games didn't exist I know I wouldn't be a gamer right now.

But they are?

If the game industry cannot produce revenue like the music and film industry can, that's the publisher's problem.

Yep and they are fixing their problem.
 
BlastProcessing said:
So a retailer attempting to raise margins is predatory, but a publisher attempting to raise margins isn't?

Considering how long they've had their sales guidelines in place, "attempting" really doesn't do the practice justice. They've been profiteering mightily for years at the expense of consumers and producer's alike.

The basic John Smith of buy low, sell high pretty much guarantees who's getting the shitty end of the stick.

BlastProcessing said:
Of course Gamestop isn't in the business of doing their customers any favors. Of course Gamestop's customers aren't interested in doing Gamestop any favors either. Instead they are working together to create exchanges that are mutually beneficial. Consumers have many options for where they would like to buy and ssell used games. Gamestop has to compete with those.

Mutually beneficial only if those transactions existed in a vacuum. Unfortunately they don't and conveniently ignore the most crucial player in the scene, the creator/supplier of original product.

You and Gamestop may be happy with the status quo, but that doesn't give you any right, moral or legal, to dictate terms to the third participant, without whom the entire business would not exist.

BlastProcessing said:
As for your "All wrong", I hope you don't mind if I take the fact that you weren't able to actually respond to that at its face value.

Take it as you will, but everything in that quote I believe to be incorrect and I thought I'd simply spare you my verbosity (for once).
 
Indie games also cost 10 dollars. You will never get a AAA title with that sort of sale value. Oh and people actually want to play AAA games and are willing to pay the money to do so. If AAA games didn't exist I know I wouldn't be a gamer right now.

Clearly you speak for the consumer...
 
Thanks for this heads up, I am actually looking to offload almost my entire collection mostly for space.

I did something like this and it was one of the most liberating things I ever did. Some I sold, some I gave to charity shops, some I gave to friends and others I threw away all packaging (in terms of amaray cases) and put the sleeves into storage and the disks into a huge metal carry case. Have all your disks numbered in a spreadsheet with film names and your case put somewhere out of the way. Voila, loads of space. I had to be absolutely ruthless too and not be picky, the result was worth it though if you need more space.
 
Here is the obvious solution to the problem:

So lets say that Microsoft initiates a digital service that allows all of us to sell our used games. It is a open market system that allows people to put a price on their used game and Microsoft takes a percentage (10-20%) of all the sales. The publisher or game company also gets a chunk of that percentage (obviously determiend by Microsoft). Is this any different than what Gamestop is currently doing except for the fact that the publishers and game companies get NOTHING!!

I would LOVE a system like this.

Fuck yes, this would be sweet. I would immediately use my purchasing power to corner out a market, say CoD (by buying all copies whenever they show up) and then I would immediately price fix them all at $54.99. It would be awesome. I'd make so much money I wouldn't even mind letting MS and Activision get their beaks wet a second time.
 
Fuck yes, this would be sweet. I would immediately use my purchasing power to corner out a market, say CoD (by buying all copies whenever they show up) and then I would immediately price fix them all at $54.99. It would be awesome. I'd make so much money I wouldn't even mind letting MS and Activision get their beaks wet a second time.

I think you would have quite a bit of trouble doing that when you are allowed 1 copy of a game per account...
 
Perhaps, but i view COD as a game that has perfected the quick multiplayer aspect that a lot of users want in a game. They don't want complications or difficulty....they really do want a new coat of paint on a system that they understand. Not everyone wants Dark Souls that really takes a good amount of user effort to get into and perfect (NOT a casual game at all).

It is funny...a lot of investors complained that activision never got into the casual market. They don't realize that COD IS the casual market.

Yes, COD is the definitive casual game it is just disguised as a hardcore shooter.

Activision is very sneaky.
 
Fuck yes, this would be sweet. I would immediately use my purchasing power to corner out a market, say CoD (by buying all copies whenever they show up) and then I would immediately price fix them all at $54.99. It would be awesome. I'd make so much money I wouldn't even mind letting MS and Activision get their beaks wet a second time.

Exactly. You allow the market to determine what a used game is worth. Perhaps it is only worth 5 bucks and YOU and the PUBLISHER get to cut that in little itty pieces. There is really no point in having Gamestop for the digital world we are moving into. I am already in the digital age...I almost NEVER buy a physical copy anymore...and i LOVE steam.
 
Thanks for this heads up, I am actually looking to offload almost my entire collection of DVDs and BluRays, mostly for space.

I will never sell my games, though.

Just be aware that they can be rather picky in taking the DVD or Blu-Ray if you have a employee in a bad mood or something. So just give your DVDs and Blu-Rays a good cleaning before you trade them in, make sure there's no egregious scratches or anything on 'em.

And go to the store expecting a few of your DVDs and Blu-Rays to be rejected: they don't take ones that are so popular that they don't need inventory (like, if you go to their online trade in website, it'll give you a general idea of the price you'll get for something. And when something only returns a price of $0.50 or something, don't bother bringing it in), and they can sometimes reject a DVD/Blu-Ray you feel should be accepted. So just go in expecting to take home a few DVDs/Blu-Rays back with you again, and you'll be very happy.
 
If you don't like AAA games why the hell are you gaming on consoles?[/B] Call of Duty sells 20 + million copies. Clearly many people like AAA games.


Disgaea, Tales series, Armored Core, Fighters, Demon souls, Sports games(PC versions normally suck) and indy games that come out only for consoles. As for your COD part... umm, what does that have to do with what I was talking about?
 
Exactly. You allow the market to determine what a used game is worth. Perhaps it is only worth 5 bucks and YOU and the PUBLISHER get to cut that in little itty pieces. There is really no point in having Gamestop for the digital world we are moving into. I am already in the digital age...I almost NEVER buy a physical copy anymore...and i LOVE steam.

Because you are everybody. Everybody has high speed internet to download gigs worth of data all around the world. We live in a magical fantasy land where our internet is so good that everybody can afford it and everybody has 30+mbs.
 
Once we start calling previously loved gamer's games casual just because they're popular... Things are getting weird. CoD is designed for quick satisfaction but so is Mario. It's getting repetitive, a big Cod4-esque overhaul would be nice, but come on. Casual?

Not to mention Activision is like.. the only AAA doing it right. The problem is everyone is trying to be Activision, because these publicly traded companies are trying to artificially bloat the stock of their companies.
 
Disgaea, Tales series, Armored Core, Fighters, Demon souls, Sports games(PC versions normally suck) and indy games that come out only for consoles. As for your COD part... umm, what does that have to do with what I was talking about?

That is a good question. What are you talking about? I might be wrong, but you seem to think AAA games aren't the dominant reason people own consoles and that large budgets aren't required. If you think that, you are wrong. If companies could choose not to spend 100 + million and create the experiences we currently have I'm sure they would have done that.
 
The issue i have with TB's video is console games 98% of the time are usually charged at $60 each (or in my case $90). Sorry but movies, music and books no where near cost that much. The lost multiple revue streams a game doesn't have compared to movies is made up for in its price, plus you have DLC and online passes. I don't have a issue online passes, i thought it was good compromise.

If 'AAA' games cost 10bucks each he would have a argument and i would 100% agree with it.
 
That is a good question. What are you talking about? I might be wrong, but you seem to think AAA games aren't the dominant reason people own consoles and that large budgets aren't required. If you think that, you are wrong. If companies could choose not to spend 100 + million and create the experiences we currently have I'm sure they would have done that.

Again you are literally arguing with how the market is moving. Also, if you think these publicly traded companies dont want 100+ million dollar budget games, well whatever... So at this point I'm going to treat you like Open Source, someone who just isn't worth the effort.
 
Top Bottom