Support NeoGAF

[FunkyMunkey]

Just wanted to say that I echo the hilarious observation of hypocrisy oozing from Mr. "Totalbiscuit" in regards to devs not profiting from used-game sales (which they do when gamers use the money to buy new games) while meanwhile, he makes cash on youtube using gameplay from the games those same developers made.

It's a super sweet, almost rare, delicious kind of hypocrisy, especially when you consider how much of an asshole the guy acts like.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

In what legislative area is what he suggests technically true? Because i can legally lend my games to friends where i live (Sweden). I would have thought the same was true in the UK where TB is from.

Especially since the recent EU court decision against Oracle that made it perfectly clear that selling a digital license second hand is perfectly legal. Of course that also obviously means i can lend it to a friend.

I guess he's one of those who think corporation created EULAs are worth a damn.

It's ridiculous how disconnected he is from the average joe.

 

[Card Boy]

Just wanted to say that I echo the hilarious observation of hypocrisy oozing from Mr. "Totalbiscuit" in regards to devs not profiting from used-game sales (which they do when gamers use the money to buy new games) while meanwhile, he makes cash on youtube using gameplay from the games those same developers made.

It's a super sweet, almost rare, delicious kind of hypocrisy, especially when you consider how much of an asshole the guy acts like.

Nailed it. He is a do as i say not as i do sort of guy. Mind you he does get alot of permission for his videos from the developers themselves.

 

[Arjen]

...y'all do realize that someone can be a jerk or say something dumb on twitter and still make a pretty good argument over the course of a 30-minute YouTube video, right?

Offcourse, but if you make an argument and refuse to listen to a rebuttal and treat those people like whiners, you're an asshole and i don't want to listen to you anymore.

 

[Toppot]

Just wanted to say that I echo the hilarious observation of hypocrisy oozing from Mr. "Totalbiscuit" in regards to devs not profiting from used-game sales (which they do when gamers use the money to buy new games) while meanwhile, he makes cash on youtube using gameplay from the games those same developers made.

It's a super sweet, almost rare, delicious kind of hypocrisy, especially when you consider how much of an asshole the guy acts like.

He gets sent a lot of games by developers/publishers. Do you know why? because they want him to play the game and give them free advertising. Obvious this only really works if he likes the game.

Sure he makes money off of his channel, but the developers get a lot of extra sales from him exposing the game to his subscribers, and liking it, whether he gets sent copies for free or not.

Even if he hates the game, chances are someone watching the video is going to buy the game. They give away one free copy to TB and they make at least a few sales back, everyone wins.

 

[jorma]

I guess he's one of those who think corporation created EULAs are worth a damn.

It's ridiculous how disconnected he is from the average joe.

Yeah, i was wondering if he was referring to EULAS. Oh well. He is still wrong on that point when it comes to most of the markets MS intends to pursue. =)

 

[FunkyMunkey]

He gets sent a lot of games by developers/publishers. Do you know why? because they want him to play the game and give them free advertising. Obvious this only really works if he likes the game.

Sure he makes money off of his channel, but the developers get a lot of extra sales from him exposing the game to his subscribers, and liking it, whether he gets sent copies for free or not.

It's not hypocrisy, it's your idiocy.

So in other words, you insist that he's a more or less a puppet-corporate shill and that his opinion on corporate decisions should in fact, be taken as that of someone in the corporate circle of the said corporation?

Someone who is given free games based on how he reviews prior games, and who relies on ad money from major gaming corporations, would bend down on all fours for a Microsoft/Publisher backed no-used games policy? Surprise surprise.

You should post next about how nice and level-headed the internet-famous guy is behaving in this whole matter. I'm sure I, and many others, are merely misunderstanding how much of a dick this guy is.

 

[Mononoke]

No. No it is not powerful and humbling. It's a fucking hashtag. I mean, I have no problem with hashtags, but even I can admit that it's just a fucking hashtag.

Twitter campaigns accomplish very little, in the end. It's fine if you want to do them, but you shouldn't be surprised or take it super personally when someone has the opinion that nothing you're doing is making all that much of a difference, because... it isn't.

They already knew there was lots of opposition to this, they already had been tweeted at a million times about it. Only thing deciding what they do next is their own decisions based on what they want and what they think most of us will put up with.

I think what TB is saying is that at this point, what is appreciated and needed is long posts explaining your thoughts and arguments against or for this issue. Not hashtags that simply confirm to these companies what they've already known.

This reply is completely mind boggling to me.

First off, I can understand if someone agrees with TB. That someone could agree with him that something like a twitter campaign is not a good way to share feedback with companies etc.

But that's not why I (and others) took issue with what TB said. TB was being a pompous jerk, and looking down on others for participating on this. And it goes beyond him just disagreeing, the guy went out of his way to keep reminding people why the campaign was dumb, even after he got shot down by someone that worked for Sony (who disagreed). He was basically acting like a little child waving his arms around to get attention.

I mean hell, just read the post. He first insults the person that started the campaign, then he tells the guy he hasn't "done a damn thing" and that journalists have been covering the issue for weeks.

This is totally just my own interpretation, but I would say TB is coming across as someone that has a bloated ego about what he does. That he views himself above others (ie. gamers voicing criticisms on forums or twitter campaigns is not legitimate, but journalists covering it in on websites is).

 

[Toppot]

So in other words, you insist that he's a more or less a puppet-corporate shill and that his opinion on corporate decisions should in fact, be taken as that of someone in the corporate circle of the corporation?

Someone who is given free games based on how he reviews prior games, and who relies on ad money from major gaming corporations, would bend down on all fours for a Microsoft/Publisher backed no-used games policy? Surprise surprise.

You should post next about how nice and level-headed the internet-famous guy is behaving in this whole matter. I'm sure I, and a many others, are merely misunderstanding how much of a dick this guy is.

He is part of the industry, he wouldn't deny that. He doesn't have to be nice to anyone though, he can buy games himself and review/look at them. Getting free copies is just a bonus and increases pubs/devs chances that he will look at the game.

He supported anti-used games using facts and evidence, not because he wants to be buddies with the publishers.

He has come out and presented a fairly good case for why Xbox is going the way its going, I'm not saying he's not a dick, I don't watch many of his videos, but he is showing a largely pro-used-games community the other side.

I would agree that he neglects to look at how used game sales do (70% of the time I believe) go towards new games. Though this still short changes pubs/devs compared to no used game sales at all.

I also think he forgets to mention that yes games do have things like internet activated DRM and online passes, and cd's, dvd's book don't. But you don't think they would if they could? Games are unique in the fact to use them your pretty much have to have an internet enabled device to use them. If a book publisher could get money from everyone that read a copy of their book you can bet they would. Kindle and other ebook services are cheaper than print copies, not just because it's cheaper to distribute, but less people will read that copy as people are less likely to lend their kindle and they can't sell back that ebook.

 

[sol_bad]

Send him press copies. He has bitched on a few videos when he has had to buy it himself.

LMAO
He has no right to even complain if he barely buys games.

 

[Froli]

It's been known that TB is a dick/asshole with the way he say's his opinion on social media (twitter, Reddit). He lacks the usual etiquette and quite thin skinned which is evident on his Youtube videos replies to users who irks him.

I still watch his vid's though. lol

 

[Moxx19]

He is part of the industry, he wouldn't deny that. He doesn't have to be nice to anyone though, he can buy games himself and review/look at them. Getting free copies is just a bonus and increases pubs/devs chances that he will look at the game.

He supported anti-used games using facts and evidence, not because he wants to be buddies with the publishers.

He has come out and presented a fairly good case for why Xbox is going the way its going, I'm not saying he's not a dick, I don't watch many of his videos, but he is showing a largely pro-used-games community the other side.

I would agree that he neglects to look at how used game sales do (70% of the time I believe) go towards new games. Though this still short changes pubs/devs compared to no used game sales at all.

I also think he forgets to mention that yes games do have things like internet activated DRM and online passes, and cd's, dvd's book don't. But you don't think they would if they could? Games are unique in the fact to use them your pretty much have to have an internet enabled device to use them. If a book publisher could get money from everyone that read a copy of their book you can bet they would. Kindle and other ebook services are cheaper than print copies, not just because it's cheaper to distribute, but less people will read that copy as people are less likely to lend their kindle and they can't sell back that ebook.

Nonsense. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't have put nearly as much money into this industry as I did if I couldn't rent a copy of a used game first, and I doubt that situation is uncommon.

The reason CD's, DVD's, books ect. don't have DRM like policies is because it is illegal. Even if it wasn't, the heads of those businesses wouldn't dare mess with the fundamental foundation of trade that is property rights.

The exposure to those mediums is exponentially more ingrained in the mainstream. If suddenly you were unable to assume ownership and trade rights of those mediums it wouldn't remain legal for very long.

 

[Cynar]

He is part of the industry, he wouldn't deny that. He doesn't have to be nice to anyone though, he can buy games himself and review/look at them. Getting free copies is just a bonus and increases pubs/devs chances that he will look at the game.

He supported anti-used games using facts and evidence, not because he wants to be buddies with the publishers.

He has come out and presented a fairly good case for why Xbox is going the way its going, I'm not saying he's not a dick, I don't watch many of his videos, but he is showing a largely pro-used-games community the other side.

I would agree that he neglects to look at how used game sales do (70% of the time I believe) go towards new games. Though this still short changes pubs/devs compared to no used game sales at all.

I also think he forgets to mention that yes games do have things like internet activated DRM and online passes, and cd's, dvd's book don't. But you don't think they would if they could? Games are unique in the fact to use them your pretty much have to have an internet enabled device to use them. If a book publisher could get money from everyone that read a copy of their book you can bet they would. Kindle and other ebook services are cheaper than print copies, not just because it's cheaper to distribute, but less people will read that copy as people are less likely to lend their kindle and they can't sell back that ebook.

Bolded the part that it's not the customers problem. The gaming industry isn't special and they need to learn to deal with it. This has been pretty much covered over the last 26 pages.

 

[Acorn]

Bolded the part that it's not the customers problem. The gaming industry isn't special and they need to learn to deal with it. This has been pretty much covered over the last 26 pages.

Exactly. They are entitled to the first sale and no more. The same as every other bloody industry under the sun.

EDIT- To take this to the extreme. What about comic books like Action Comics no 1 which are sold for Millions of pounds, should marvel get a percentage of the profit from that private trade?

 

[jimi_dini]

...y'all do realize that someone can be a jerk or say something dumb on twitter and still make a pretty good argument over the course of a 30-minute YouTube video, right?

Yes. But Total Biscuit didn't make a pretty good argument.

$15.69 vs $4.29 for a private used sale. Which one do you think most people would pick?

Resistance 2 was one of the few games that I bought used in the last years. And I'm really glad that at least I bought it used and not new. Not only did I just pay a few bucks for it. But I'm also glad that Sony/Insomniac games didn't get a dime from me for this piece of crap.

IF it would have been great, I would have gladly bought Resistance 3 new.

 

[Toppot]

Nonsense. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't have put nearly as much money into this industry as I did if I couldn't rent a copy of a used game first, and I doubt that situation is uncommon.

The reason CD's, DVD's, books ect. don't have DRM like policies is because it is illegal. Even if it wasn't, the heads of those businesses wouldn't dare mess with the fundamental foundation of trade that is property rights.

The exposure to those mediums is exponentially more ingrained in the mainstream. If suddenly you were unable to assume ownership and trade rights of those mediums it wouldn't remain legal for very long.

If devs/pubs projected to make just as much, or more, money from the used game system then they wouldn't be trying to stop it, simple.

DVD's do have DRM, it's just not internet activated. An internet activated DRM on a game wouldn't stop you selling the disc, you can still trade it, it would just be useless unless you bought an activation key for the used copy.

Laws are outdated for the digital world we live in, ownership, rights and trade are more fluid than they were before digital came along.

Also legal/illegal doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong.

Bolded the part that it's not the customers problem. The gaming industry isn't special and they need to learn to deal with it. This has been pretty much covered over the last 26 pages.

They are special because they can have a system in place to stop used game sales. Every time pubs/devs try to make the system fairer for everyone consumers bitch about it because a fairer system means that they are the once that lose out, because the current system is weighted in their favour.

 

[Clear]

He is part of the industry, he wouldn't deny that.

(Sorry to shout, and for the upcoming semi-derail, this is for emphasis only...)

HE IS PART OF THE MEDIA, NOT PART OF THE "GAMES INDUSTRY".

If you commentate on sports, it doesn't mean you are an athlete, a trainer, or anything. Even if you favourite team sends you season tickets, you are still on the outside, looking-in.

This whole business of bloggers arrogantly assuming that they and their peers are part of the industry, really has to stop. If for no other reason than their own slackness and lack of professionalism/ethics reflects badly on the rest of the business.

 

[Acorn]

If devs/pubs projected to make just as much, or more, money from the used game system then they wouldn't be trying to stop it, simple.

DVD's do have DRM, it's just not internet activated. An internet activated DRM on a game wouldn't stop you selling the disc, you can still trade it, it would just be useless unless you bought an activation key for the used copy.

Laws are outdated for the digital world we live in, ownership, rights and trade are more fluid than they were before digital came along.

Also legal/illegal doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong.

And companies have been exploiting it to fuck with turning everything into licenses. Thankfully the EU and UK govt (to an extent) have extended physical good rights onto digital goods. But there needs to be a serious shake up to lay down the law (no pun intended).

 

[Acorn]

They are special because they can have a system in place to stop used game sales. Every time pubs/devs try to make the system fairer for everyone consumers bitch about it because a fairer system means that they are the once that lose out, because the current system is weighted in their favour.

Really? Dear lord.

 

[Effigenius]

He is part of the industry, he wouldn't deny that. He doesn't have to be nice to anyone though, he can buy games himself and review/look at them. Getting free copies is just a bonus and increases pubs/devs chances that he will look at the game.

He supported anti-used games using facts and evidence, not because he wants to be buddies with the publishers.

He has come out and presented a fairly good case for why Xbox is going the way its going, I'm not saying he's not a dick, I don't watch many of his videos, but he is showing a largely pro-used-games community the other side.

I would agree that he neglects to look at how used game sales do (70% of the time I believe) go towards new games. Though this still short changes pubs/devs compared to no used game sales at all.

I also think he forgets to mention that yes games do have things like internet activated DRM and online passes, and cd's, dvd's book don't. But you don't think they would if they could? Games are unique in the fact to use them your pretty much have to have an internet enabled device to use them. If a book publisher could get money from everyone that read a copy of their book you can bet they would. Kindle and other ebook services are cheaper than print copies, not just because it's cheaper to distribute, but less people will read that copy as people are less likely to lend their kindle and they can't sell back that ebook.

To your first point, it's the opposite of what you state actually. So if 100,000 games get sold, the money they get from selling those games. Used to buy 70,000 new games for a total of 170,000 sold. Take away used games and now the original buyers don't have the money to buy the new game so instead of 170,000 sales you only get 100,000. This doesn't even take into account the fact that a large percentage of these resellers buy the game with the intention of reselling it to put it toward the next game. If that isnt an option, a large number of the people that would have bought those original 100,000 copies now no longer choose to do so. So sure, you can take away the used game market but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think doing so only benefits the publisher.

To your second point, of course they would. Every business would like to get as much money as possible from you. The maker of your home would love it if you sent him a nice check whenever you sold your house. Thank goodness consumers are protected from corporate greed like that.

 

[DarkFlow]

Exactly. They are entitled to the first sale and no more. The same as every other bloody industry under the sun.

EDIT- To take this to the extreme. What about comic books like Action Comics no 1 which are sold for Millions of pounds, should marvel get a percentage of the profit from that private trade?

Or how about the family's of Van Gogh or Picasso, they don't demand a cut when one of there paintings get sold for 100 million. They have no right to it since they no longer own it. The gaming industry is no different. I'm not here to be there crutch when they over spend like madmen. this is a hobby and I'm looking out for myself, not them.

 

[Effigenius]

If devs/pubs projected to make just as much, or more, money from the used game system then they wouldn't be trying to stop it, simple.

DVD's do have DRM, it's just not internet activated. An internet activated DRM on a game wouldn't stop you selling the disc, you can still trade it, it would just be useless unless you bought an activation key for the used copy.

Laws are outdated for the digital world we live in, ownership, rights and trade are more fluid than they were before digital came along.

Also legal/illegal doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong.



They are special because they can have a system in place to stop used game sales. Every time pubs/devs try to make the system fairer for everyone consumers bitch about it because a fairer system means that they are the once that lose out, because the current system is weighted in their favour.

False. Businesses tend to milk the cow until its dead. Remember rock band and guitar hero? If activision and ea had taken a more patient approach, say releasing one game every other year, it's likely those franchises would still live. But they flooded the market with all kinds of sequels and spin offs and killed the genre. They didn't care about projections that they could make more in the long run if they just showed some restraint. Those execs wanted their bonuses and promotions and it would be left to their successors to deal with the outcome of their decisions. The same is happening with the used game market. They've seen the data, they know used games are an important part of the ecosystem, but they don't care. They want their raises and promotions and the next guy can deal with what happens next.

 

[Card Boy]

I remember when TB would always say 'The moment you put a corporation interests above your own, you lose as a consumer'

 

[Toppot]

(Sorry to shout, and for the upcoming semi-derail, this is for emphasis only...)

HE IS PART OF THE MEDIA, NOT PART OF THE "GAMES INDUSTRY".

If you commentate on sports, it doesn't mean you are an athlete, a trainer, or anything. Even if you favourite team sends you season tickets, you are still on the outside, looking-in.

This whole business of bloggers arrogantly assuming that they and their peers are part of the industry, really has to stop. If for no other reason than their own slackness and lack of professionalism/ethics reflects badly on the rest of the business.

Apology accepted =P

I would say that media is part of the industry, it affects the industry in a big way. He is part of the system, if he vanished tomorrow it wouldn't be a big lose, but what he says/does affects sales of games. Sports comparison is bad, what commentators say does matter.

There is a difference between a 'blogger' and someone like TotalBiscuit that has over a million subscribers.

And companies have been exploiting it to fuck with turning everything into licenses. Thankfully the EU and UK govt (to an extent) have extended physical good rights onto digital goods. But there needs to be a serious shake up to lay down the law (no pun intended).

People, be they consumers or business, will use the law to try and get the most out of it for themselves. I happen to think it is unfair that one copy of a game can be bought and dozens of people can play it, I don't think thats fair on the pubs/devs, do you?

To your first point, it's the opposite of what you state actually. So if 100,000 games get sold, the money they get from selling those games. Used to buy 70,000 new games for a total of 170,000 sold. Take away used games and now the original buyers don't have the money to buy the new game so instead of 170,000 sales you only get 100,000. This doesn't even take into account the fact that a large percentage of these resellers buy the game with the intention of reselling it to put it toward the next game. If that isnt an option, a large number of the people that would have bought those original 100,000 copies now no longer choose to do so. So sure, you can take away the used game market but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think doing so only benefits the publisher.

To your second point, of course they would. Every business would like to get as much money as possible from you. The maker of your home would love it if you sent him a nice check whenever you sold your house. Thank goodness consumers are protected from corporate greed like that.

You are incorrectly assuming that one traded in game, 70% of the time, equals the purchase of one new game. Usually you might have to trade in 2 or more games (Depending on value) to buy one new game. You are also not taking into account that without used games, most of the used game buyers would change to new game buyers, though maybe less games bought, rather than dropping out of buying games all together.

Equating a house to entertainment products is ridiculous.

False. Businesses tend to milk the cow until its dead. Remember rock band and guitar hero? If activision and ea had taken a more patient approach, say releasing one game every other year, it's likely those franchises would still live. But they flooded the market with all kinds of sequels and spin offs and killed the genre. They didn't care about projections that they could make more in the long run if they just showed some restraint. Those execs wanted their bonuses and promotions and it would be left to their successors to deal with the outcome of their decisions. The same is happening with the used game market. They've seen the data, they know used games are an important part of the ecosystem, but they don't care. They want their raises and promotions and the next guy can deal with what happens next.

They kept doing it because they knew it was going to crash and they wanted to make the most money out of it while they could (GH vs RockBand). The used market won't crash left to its own devices, this is not a good comparison.

 

[Acorn]

Apology accepted =P

I would say that media is part of the industry, it affects the industry in a big way. He is part of the system, if he vanished tomorrow it wouldn't be a big lose, but what he says/does affects sales of games. Sports comparison is bad, what commentators say does matter.

There is a difference between a 'blogger' and someone like TotalBiscuit that has over a million subscribers.



People, be they consumers or business, will use the law to try and get the most out of it for themselves. I happen to think it is unfair that one copy of a game can be bought and dozens of people can play it, I don't think thats fair on the pubs/devs, do you?



You are incorrectly assuming that one traded in game, 70% of the time, equals the purchase of one new game. Usually you might have to trade in 2 or more games (Depending on value) to buy one new game. You are also not taking into account that without used games, most of the used game buyers would change to new game buyers, though maybe less games bought, rather than dropping out of buying games all together.

Equating a house to entertainment products is ridiculous.

Yes it is completely fair, they have produced one product and are entitled from one sale from that product no more. Anything different is unfair as they gain infinite money from producing one thing.

Edit- Not to mention the fact that it completely tramples all over the first sale doctrine that is applied to practically everything under the sun and those that it doesn't currently cover are being chased up by the EU and others.

 

[Vinci]

Let's ignore for a moment any alleged increase to revenue that publishers claim they would earn by the mitigation and/or removal of used games... They didn't have access to this revenue to begin with, so it's odd to me how once business as usual (spending more than they can afford, setting unrealistic expectations for various titles, shuttering devs even before their game has sold a single copy, etc.) fails to be profitable, they seek out methods for removing consumer options and diminishing consumer rights, rather than address what they themselves may be doing wrong within the current state of things.

If your strategy fails within the current state of things, by and large it wasn't a very wise strategy. No amount of excuses, hand-wringing, or otherwise is going to take a stupid strategy and somehow make it a smart one.

Also: Games do degrade over time. The majority of games these days have some form of online multiplayer, which depends heavily on an existing community. Once that community disperses, which happens rather quickly in some cases, any benefit you may have gotten from that content similarly disperses. Entire strips of functionality may be gone.

People should stop looking at degradation as a strict physical property - the key factor of degradation comes from functionality being lost. Most people don't care why the A/C on their car doesn't work, only that it doesn't. One difference being that the A/C can likely be repaired, its functionality restored, whereas the online community for a game cannot be.

 

[DarkFlow]

People, be they consumers or business, will use the law to try and get the most out of it for themselves. I happen to think it is unfair that one copy of a game can be bought and dozens of people can play it, I don't think thats fair on the pubs/devs, do you?

Why should I care if its unfair to anyone but myself? I really don't give a fuck if they think it's unfair, it's not my problem. If the whole gaming industry blew up tomorrow, while I would be bummed out my hobby is now dead I would find other things to do and move on.

Why do you think it's okay to give up your right as a consumer for a company that in all realty could not give two shits about you and only looks at you as a cash machine?

 

[diamount]

Just wanted to say that I echo the hilarious observation of hypocrisy oozing from Mr. "Totalbiscuit" in regards to devs not profiting from used-game sales (which they do when gamers use the money to buy new games) while meanwhile, he makes cash on youtube using gameplay from the games those same developers made.

It's a super sweet, almost rare, delicious kind of hypocrisy, especially when you consider how much of an asshole the guy acts like.

It's a mutual beneficial relationship. He only really coves indie games and gives them more attention, he's got like 1million+ subscribers now, that's a big audience to introduce a game they may of never heard of.

 

[Vinci]

People, be they consumers or business, will use the law to try and get the most out of it for themselves. I happen to think it is unfair that one copy of a game can be bought and dozens of people can play it, I don't think thats fair on the pubs/devs, do you?

Generally speaking, I would say that laws should be applied to protect the rights of the individual and those of the corporation, though the latter should bend if and when those rights would impugn the rights of the former. Why would I want legislation to favor companies - and in this case, a very specific subset of them - over individuals?

 

[Valnen]

Offcourse, but if you make an argument and refuse to listen to a rebuttal and treat those people like whiners, you're an asshole and i don't want to listen to you anymore.

Well that's all people are really being honestly, whiners. Tons of people approach this issue with an all or nothing mindset.

 

[Toppot]

Yes it is completely fair, they have produced one product and are entitled from one sale from that product no more. Anything different is unfair as they gain infinite money from producing one thing.

Edit- Not to mention the fact that it completely tramples all over the first sale doctrine that is applied to practically everything under the sun and those that it doesn't currently cover are being chased up by the EU and others.

How long do you think the games, or any other industry for that matter, would last when the product costs say $1million to make, and they sell one copy for $60?

Why should I care if its unfair to anyone but myself? I really don't give a fuck if they think it's unfair, it's not my problem. If the whole gaming industry blew up tomorrow, while I would be bummed out my hobby is now dead I would find other things to do and move on.

Why do you think it's okay to give up your right as a consumer for a company that in all realty could not give two shits about you and only looks at you as a cash machine?

If you don't care about fairness then that's fine, care to give up your human rights? Because it's not fair that everyone has them, so I'll take yours away and torture you?

Generally speaking, I would say that laws should be applied to protect the rights of the individual and those of the corporation, though the latter should bend if and when those rights would impugn the rights of the former. Why would I want legislation to favor companies - and in this case, a very specific subset of them - over individuals?

I think laws should protect the rights of everyone, we are all a part of the system. They shouldn't lean in favour of individuals or the corporations.

I'll say to you the same thing:

How long do you think the games, or any other industry for that matter, would last when the product costs say $1million to make, and they sell one copy for $60?

 

[DarkFlow]

If you don't care about fairness then that's fine, care to give up your human rights? Because it's not fair that everyone has them, so I'll take yours away and torture you?

Umm.. I don't even know how to respond to this. Being able to sale a used game, and being tortured are total the same thing...

 

[Vinci]

I'll say to you the same thing:

How long do you think the games, or any other industry for that matter, would last when the product costs say $1million to make, and they sell one copy for $60?

Ignoring the viewpoint about laws not favoring individuals, which... admittedly I think is rather unfortunate... I don't understand the rationale behind this question, frankly. Honestly, I'd think the publishers would be thrilled if they could spend only $1 million to produce anything.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

...y'all do realize that someone can be a jerk or say something dumb on twitter and still make a pretty good argument over the course of a 30-minute YouTube video, right?

Also think there's a bit too much of this, deserved or otherwise. Argue the man's points, not the man.

Still, basically what it all seems to boil down to for him is that there are deep discounts on Steam. If that wasn't the case I'm sure he wouldn't be ok with it, none of us would be. And I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna take that on faith with a company like Microsoft, or any company for that matter. Nor am I gonna accept publishers gnawing away at consumer rights because they can't figure out another way of sustaining their business.

 

[Toppot]

Umm.. I don't even know how to respond to this. Being able to sale a used game, and being tortured are total the same thing...

I'll put it another way. Why shouldn't the games industry be a fair system?

Ignoring the viewpoint about laws not favoring individuals, which... admittedly I think is rather unfortunate... I don't understand the rationale behind this question, frankly. Honestly, I'd think the publishers would be thrilled if they could spend only $1 million to produce anything.

I'm saying that the law should side with game industries sometimes, and side with consumers sometimes, so that overall the laws balance out. Without laws like copyright in favour of stopping people copying games, the industry would collapse. One copy could be sold and everyone plays that one copy. Which would be great for the consumer in the short run, though in the long run the companies wouldn't make enough money to make games.

 

[Vinci]

I'm saying that the law should side with game industries sometimes, and side with consumers sometimes, so that overall the laws balance out. Without laws like copyright in favour of stopping people copying games, the industry would collapse. One copy could be sold and everyone plays that one copy. Which would be great for the consumer in the short run, though in the long run the companies wouldn't make enough money to make games.

You're taking this to an extreme that no one is suggesting. What's being said is that used products are commonplace; it's not as if they suddenly appeared and bit the publishers in the ass. There have been used games, lent games, etc. and so on for quite a long time now.

So, publishers knew used games existed and how the system worked... The most recent generation occurred, they made some choices about how to operate within that generation, and many of them are bleeding. Games that sell 3 to 4 million units - once considered a pretty considerable achievement throughout the industry - result in no profit, developers closed (sometimes even before the game was put on market), and gradually this chant against 'used games' appears with gusto. In the meantime, the industry has developed numerous methods for further revenue, from more frequent collectors editions to DLC.

Again: The problem, to my mind, isn't the alleged revenue they are (possibly) missing out on; it's that even with all the revenue they get and all the units their titles sell, they still are performing poorly. That speaks more to mismanagement than it does a system that has existed throughout this and many other industries since the beginning.

So why should property rights change given they weren't the reason publishers started having so many problems?

 

[Clear]

There is a difference between a 'blogger' and someone like TotalBiscuit that has over a million subscribers.

He's a blogger! That's not a bad or inconsequential thing; as you point out he's got a lot of followers. I'm not one of them, but I saw the link at the top of this thread and I happen to agree with many of his points on this particular issue.

The bottom line for me is that I get a bit dismayed the way that anything negative to do with gaming these days is seemingly blames on "the industry". Who are this nebulous group? Because they sure as hell aren't the people I've worked with in 20 plus years as a coder, designer, and on occasions producer.

Most people who work "in the industry" have absolutely no say in the way that DRM and pricing, and greenlighting, and promotion, and all that shit affects the end user. You go in, work long hours and take a paycheck at the end of the month, assuming your employer hasn't gone tits-up in the meanwhile.

That experience, is the industry for the overwhelming majority of the people working in it.

Now here's the thing: As an employee you are most of the time completely at the mercy of what your bosses believe. It doesn't matter whether its "real" or not, because if that belief informs their actions, and those actions impact you directly, its as real as a heart-attack.

Ergo if publishers, without who's funding we wouldn't have work to get paid for, change their business and commissioning models based on what their experts are telling them about the state of the market, and what's impacting their ability to earn ROI, then that is a very real thing to us.

Its all very well saying, "change your bosses", but you try applying that in your life and chosen occupation!

The bottom line is that publishers can only ever offer you a deal based on what they think the product is worth to them. If you agree that it matches with what you're willing to pay then that's a meeting of the minds and you can make the deal. However if either side is unhappy they are in their rights to walk away. As a consumer they have no real power over you, other than what you choose to allow them.

However as a so-called "industry professional", that really isn't the case. If they decide they don't want to bankroll your project because the revenue it offers is too weak in their estimation, you've got a serious problem - especially as there are relatively few big-time publishers with the financial wherewithall to give you what you need.

They might be "evil" to you, but they are neccessary to provide work for many people and support for their families. So the next time you read someone going off on a "fuck the industry" or "I hope it all crashes and burns" rant, give a thought to how many ordinary working people are going to get their lives crushed by it.

That's the industry I'm talking about.

 

[syllogism]

The First-sale doctrine/exhaustion of rights isn't even a right of an individual, but the buyer, if you want to even frame it as a right since it's a limitation of the copyright first and foremost. Indeed, most, if not all, of the high profile cases involve two businesses, not a consumer. If a private individual sells their copyrighted thing to a company, the principle is just as applicable. Regardless of what the law says, the industry can essentially render your right to sell the copy (relatively) worthless by raising the price of the product. The discussion should revolve around the importance of limiting the copyright regime, although in the context of games (pure entertainment) the arguments typically used to argue for very narrowly defined copyrights are weaker.

 

[jakonovski]

I'll put it another way. Why shouldn't the games industry be a fair system?

The problem is that what you think is fair is not shared by many individuals in this thread.

 

[Toppot]

You're taking this to an extreme that no one is suggesting. What's being said is that used products are commonplace; it's not as if they suddenly appeared and bit the publishers in the ass. There have been used games, lent games, etc. and so on for quite a long time now.

So, publishers knew used games existed and how the system worked... The most recent generation occurred, they made some choices about how to operate within that generation, and many of them are bleeding. Games that sell 3 to 4 million units - once considered a pretty considerable achievement throughout the industry - result in no profit, developers closed (sometimes even before the game was put on market), and gradually this chant against 'used games' appears with gusto. In the meantime, the industry has developed numerous methods for further revenue, from more frequent collectors editions to DLC.

Again: The problem, to my mind, isn't the alleged revenue they are (possibly) missing out on; it's that even with all the revenue they get and all the units their titles sell, they still are performing poorly. That speaks more to mismanagement than it does a system that has existed throughout this and many other industries since the beginning.

So why should property rights change given they weren't the reason publishers started having so many problems?

Used games has always been an issue, it's only this generation and the next that has given them the power to do something about it, now a majority of consoles are internet connected some of the time. Online passes are a great system as far as I'm concerned. If you don't have your console online you won't use online anyway, if you do and you bought a used copy you have to pay the publisher to use the online content, servers, patches etc. A very fair system. Yes they have adapted with DLC and collectors editions but those have downsides to. I for instance refuse to buy Assassins Creed games when they come out because I know the DLC will pile on and i want to buy the game as a whole, not in pieces, so i wait for the GOTY edition. This is one way in which DLC can lose them some money.

I agree that the business side needs work as well, budgets balloon and the sales that 'AAA' need to achieve to make profit is ridiculous.

They should change to be fairer, it doesn't matter when it started, it should be about changing things for the better for everyone.

They kind of are:

Yes it is completely fair, they have produced one product and are entitled from one sale from that product no more. Anything different is unfair as they gain infinite money from producing one thing.

He's a blogger! That's not a bad or inconsequential thing; as you point out he's got a lot of followers. I'm not one of them, but I saw the link at the top of this thread and I happen to agree with many of his points on this particular issue.

The bottom line for me is that I get a bit dismayed the way that anything negative to do with gaming these days is seemingly blames on "the industry". Who are this nebulous group? Because they sure as hell aren't the people I've worked with in 20 plus years as a coder, designer, and on occasions producer.

Most people who work "in the industry" have absolutely no say in the way that DRM and pricing, and greenlighting, and promotion, and all that shit affects the end user. You go in, work long hours and take a paycheck at the end of the month, assuming your employer hasn't gone tits-up in the meanwhile.

That experience, is the industry for the overwhelming majority of the people working in it.

Now here's the thing: As an employee you are most of the time completely at the mercy of what your bosses believe. It doesn't matter whether its "real" or not, because if that belief informs their actions, and those actions impact you directly, its as real as a heart-attack.

Ergo if publishers, without who's funding we wouldn't have work to get paid for, change their business and commissioning models based on what their experts are telling them about the state of the market, and what's impacting their ability to earn ROI, then that is a very real thing to us.

Its all very well saying, "change your bosses", but you try applying that in your life and chosen occupation!

The bottom line is that publishers can only ever offer you a deal based on what they think the product is worth to them. If you agree that it matches with what you're willing to pay then that's a meeting of the minds and you can make the deal. However if either side is unhappy they are in their rights to walk away. As a consumer they have no real power over you, other than what you choose to allow them.

However as a so-called "industry professional", that really isn't the case. If they decide they don't want to bankroll your project because the revenue it offers is too weak in their estimation, you've got a serious problem - especially as there are relatively few big-time publishers with the financial wherewithall to give you what you need.

They might be "evil" to you, but they are neccessary to provide work for many people and support for their families. So the next time you read someone going off on a "fuck the industry" or "I hope it all crashes and burns" rant, give a thought to how many ordinary working people are going to get their lives crushed by it.

That's the industry I'm talking about.

I get the struggles of developing games, and even having the chance to develop a game. But bloggers play a role in it just as consumers do. They might not have a personal vestment in the game they look at like you do when you develop, but in the case of people like TB their livelihood relies on games. He's not some 'blogger' that just spouts his views in his free time.

We can argue over the definition of 'in the industry' but at the end of the day what people think on the internet has an impact on making games and on the industry. NeoGAF affects the games industry and we are basically a bunch of 'bloggers'

The problem is that what you think is fair is not shared by many individuals in this thread.

Indeed.

 

[Sephiroth503]

Would I be right in thinking that if retailers are denied the sale of used games (and thus increasing their own revenue) we then won't see the price of a new game depreciate at all for a considerable amount of time as the stores wouldn't be able to offset the reduced cost of the new game sale by the profits they'd made with used copies.

i.e. If retailer makes profit of 10euro on a used game, they could then say reduce the price of new game by 5euro and still make a profit. Without the used game income they can't reduce the price of a new game and therefore we're stuck with 50euro games for months and months.

That would be an undesirable situation for me as I feel a lot of games are overpriced for what we get.

 

[Jake Tower]

(Sorry to shout, and for the upcoming semi-derail, this is for emphasis only...)

HE IS PART OF THE MEDIA, NOT PART OF THE "GAMES INDUSTRY".

If you commentate on sports, it doesn't mean you are an athlete, a trainer, or anything. Even if you favourite team sends you season tickets, you are still on the outside, looking-in.

This whole business of bloggers arrogantly assuming that they and their peers are part of the industry, really has to stop. If for no other reason than their own slackness and lack of professionalism/ethics reflects badly on the rest of the business.

Marketing is part of the industry.

 

[remnant]

Just wanted to say that I echo the hilarious observation of hypocrisy oozing from Mr. "Totalbiscuit" in regards to devs not profiting from used-game sales (which they do when gamers use the money to buy new games) while meanwhile, he makes cash on youtube using gameplay from the games those same developers made.

It's a super sweet, almost rare, delicious kind of hypocrisy, especially when you consider how much of an asshole the guy acts like.

Yeah stupid comparison. TB doesn't make Let's Play's. He gives previews and daily news recaps.

 

[Clear]

Marketing is part of any industry.

Fixed that for you.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes an opinion is just an opinion.

The simple act of writing or talking about something in a public forum (in the larger sense, not just an internet board, although this also applies) does not mean you must be in cahoots with the subject, or working to some hidden external agenda!

You cannot blindly assume association or worse collusion based purely on subject matter; especially given the nature of internet economics where controversy=clicks=money for the site owner.

 

[antitrop]

Send him press copies. He has bitched on a few videos when he has had to buy it himself.

I'm not calling you a liar at all, but as a frequent watcher of his content I personally haven't seen this sentiment from him.

 

[jim2point0]

I'm not calling you a liar at all, but as a frequent watcher of his content I personally haven't seen this sentiment from him.

Same.

And I'm shocked that anyone outside of youtube comments actually thinks he's a shill. He tears apart games all the time. He's never nice to a game just because he's sent a copy.

Whether or not he's sent games for free to review doesn't mean he can't have an opinion on the industry. A few years ago, he was buying games just like anyone else. And he's WORKED in video game retail, so he has a little insight as to how some of these retail stores operate when it comes to used games. So I'd say he's probably more qualified to have an opinion than the average gamer.

Serious lack of critical thinking in this thread....

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'll put it another way. Why shouldn't the games industry be a fair system?



I'm saying that the law should side with game industries sometimes, and side with consumers sometimes, so that overall the laws balance out. Without laws like copyright in favour of stopping people copying games, the industry would collapse. One copy could be sold and everyone plays that one copy. Which would be great for the consumer in the short run, though in the long run the companies wouldn't make enough money to make games.

I agree. The games industry should be a fair system. I vote for a free market system where the definitions of "purchase" and "ownership" are clear and unambiguous. These concepts are foundational to capitalism, which is the most fair form of commerce that we have found. It is corrosive to a market for the concept of property to be subject to an uncertainty principal. Transactions need to be clear. Do I own this thing or not? Is it a particle or a wave? Property or a service? Is the cat alive or dead?

Creating laws to regulate markets isn't some simple tit for tat. You don't take turns, alternating between siding with the different parties. The goal is to create the simplest system that allows the free flow of goods. It will never be perfect and somebody will always argue that something isn't "fair". Instead of freaking out and micromanaging every single complaint, you should step back and view the system as a whole. Is it healthy?

And the games industry is perfectly healthy. Revenue is growing. The market has shown sufficient plasticity. There are more games available than there where 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago and the average game is of a higher quality. Games are more polished, better crafted, and more diverse. Yes, some publishers are failing, but that is a good thing. Can you imagine how bad it would be for an industry if there was never any turn over? We need companies to rise and fall. The friction is what causes innovation and progress.

There is no moral imperative for consumers to prop up a company just because it is having difficulty continuing to grow at the exponential rate to which it has been accustomed.
Companies serve consumers, not the other way around.

If Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo really wanted to destroy used games or hurt Gamestop, it could. By competing. They could actually offer download games at a discount from retail and offer extremely attractive trade ins for those digital games. They could create their own ecosystem and compete. But they don't, because they value their retailer relationships too much, because consumers value the clear concepts of "ownership" and "purchase" that the retail environment provides.

 

[spirity]

Same.

And I'm shocked that anyone outside of youtube comments actually thinks he's a shill. He tears apart games all the time. He's never nice to a game just because he's sent a copy.

Wasn't he shilling Planetside 2, and didn't he get caught out doing so?

 

[antitrop]

Wasn't he shilling Planetside 2, and didn't he get caught out doing so?

I had never heard of this situation, so I Google'd it and put together a few links so people can draw their own conclusion. No idea if I'm missing any important details or links.

http://asia.gamespot.com/starcraft-...s/total-biscuit-mlg-dallas-interview-6405616/ (PS2 Sponsorship with his/his wife's SC2 team, Axiom)

https://www.planetside2.com/news/total-biscuit-e3-announcement

SOE is excited to partner with TotalBiscuit in providing the best possible commentary for the next great MMOFPS. If you missed his livecast with Matt Higby on Thursday, you missed more than an hour of amazing video and discussion. Check it out! TotalBiscuit will also be joining us live next week during E3 from the show floor, where you’ll have the opportunity to watch massive combat as it unfolds.

John Bain (TotalBiscuit) helps run cynicalbrit.com. In his own words, the Cynicial Brit is a shoutcast, podcast, video, and audio-blogging hub, and he is an opinionated loudmouth who treats arguing like full-scale warfare, which makes him a perfect match for PlanetSide 2.

Honestly I don't think this sponsorship counts him as a "shill" when he has a video named Planetside 2 Critique. What's wrong with it so far?. Seems fairly objective to me.

 

[jim2point0]

Wasn't he shilling Planetside 2, and didn't he get caught out doing so?

He wasn't shilling. He was promoting it.

Promoting =\= shilling

A shill isn't announced to the public, and everyone pretty much knew about TB promoting the game. He actually did go on to post a video criticizing the game DURING his contract with them though, because his fans requested it. I'm pretty sure deals like that with him are pretty rare, and are always announced (like the video he did for Guns of Icarus with the TGS folks).

EDIT: Also, Antitrop beat me to it with links