Won't happen.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Total Biscuit arguing for no used game sales
- Thread starter Grief.exe
- Start date
They're both problems. Just because one is bigger than the other doesn't mean that other problems doesn't exist.
It's just greed. We never demanded games have multi million dollar budgets, they made them like that. Don't believe this propaganda. They are paying their CEOs and stock owners outrageous salaries/prices and see used games as a way that they can make more money. Pure American greed. There has been used games since the begining of gaming, they just now have the resources to cash in on it.
I think it is a bit of both. Retailers want more of that money since most of them are failing, so they want more cash to prop themselves up. Publishers don't want to give them more money because they would rather see them fade out that prop them up further, yet they have to have them there for the retail presence of their new games.
Majukun
Member
these are the same costumers who agreed on all the bullshit the developers throw at them in the past 6 years.
if there's something i trust less than publisher and developers,it's the intelligence of the user base.
also..they price fall with time anyway,so even this way i will gain exactly nothing by letting them step over my rights
an healthy industry works by "do ut des",you give me something,and i give you something in return...in the last 6 years developers have only asked for more by giving less...i will not keep on giving just because i hope they will finally give something back.
also..if an industry can't keep up with its costs,it just need to lower the costs,that's easy and nobody's rights get destroyed in the process...i know i can survive without many of the production values of modern videogames if they have good gameplay.
maybe a new era will come,an era when good gameplay and originality will dictate success instead of graphics and advertising.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I'm split.
I don't support used games but I do support borrowing games. And so does Sony. Heck, Sony even pioneered borrowing digital games with 5 activations. But this was exploited to hell and back and had to be shut down as a a result.
As of late I've grown to hate how gamers are against alternate revenue streams like micro-transactions and subscriptions. I actually prefer them to the usual massive up-front payment. I even dig the hell out of day-1-dlc if they make the game more interesting. What I don't like is hearing how every aspect other than the up-front payment is bad for the industry.
With Gaikai Sony has the chance to give us a Netflix of games. Pay 9.99 per month and get access to every single game on PS1, PS2 and PS3 (some features not included). That would be awesome value and another revenue-stream. It also allows developers to tinker their games on this service in order to give a better experience.
If games felt less entitled I think we'd be in a better place.
I don't support used games but I do support borrowing games. And so does Sony. Heck, Sony even pioneered borrowing digital games with 5 activations. But this was exploited to hell and back and had to be shut down as a a result.
As of late I've grown to hate how gamers are against alternate revenue streams like micro-transactions and subscriptions. I actually prefer them to the usual massive up-front payment. I even dig the hell out of day-1-dlc if they make the game more interesting. What I don't like is hearing how every aspect other than the up-front payment is bad for the industry.
With Gaikai Sony has the chance to give us a Netflix of games. Pay 9.99 per month and get access to every single game on PS1, PS2 and PS3 (some features not included). That would be awesome value and another revenue-stream. It also allows developers to tinker their games on this service in order to give a better experience.
If games felt less entitled I think we'd be in a better place.
The Crimson Kid
what are you waiting for
Not really.
If a customer owns both consoles, then sure they do. But most console gamers (well over 80% of them) own only one console.
Also keeping in mind the fact that both PSN and XBLM are both monopoly distributors of their digital goods (unlike Steam which has their games sold by many third-party vendors), the fact that so few console owners are in a position to comparison shop between both marketplaces doesn't create enough incentive for MS and Sony to directly respond and compete with sales on the other platform.
On PC, 100% of customers have access to a sale on a Steam game done through Amazon or some other retailer and can comparison shop as a result.
On consoles, only 10-20% of customers can comparison shop between PSN and XBLA for digital goods.
On PC, there are third-party vendors of codes for digital goods that create competition that drive prices down in the market.
On consoles, both Microsoft and Sony are the sole distributors and sellers of digital content on their stores.
The incentives for direct price competition simply aren't present on consoles in anywhere near the same way that they are on PC.
Exactly.
flatearthpandas
Member
The problem with the OP: What does any of that have to do with me as a consumer?
I don't care if EA is jelly of the music, movie, or car industries that play by the exact same rules any more than I care about if Microsoft's grandma just died and they could really use a break. These corporations don't have or deserve my pity, charity, or my rights.
I am not beholden to any developer or publisher. They put whatever funding they choose to into a product they hope I want to buy and then I do or do not buy it. Because they are spending too much on games that not enough people want to buy doesn't magically make it okay for them to strip me of my right to resell the product I've paid them for.
I don't care if EA is jelly of the music, movie, or car industries that play by the exact same rules any more than I care about if Microsoft's grandma just died and they could really use a break. These corporations don't have or deserve my pity, charity, or my rights.
I am not beholden to any developer or publisher. They put whatever funding they choose to into a product they hope I want to buy and then I do or do not buy it. Because they are spending too much on games that not enough people want to buy doesn't magically make it okay for them to strip me of my right to resell the product I've paid them for.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
It goes both ways. How much of the industry new game console/games sales go through Gamestop? REally i don't think they're as important as people say. It's like saying Movie studios don't want to piss off Blockbuster or Netflix. They do it all the time.
The only reason Gamestop even exists is the money off of used games sales. MS has this dumb plan where they want digital games but want to sell them disguised as retail. If they really wanted it to have no resell then go all digital and restructure the pricing model for games.
Or piss off Gamestop. I have a feeling walmart, amazon, best buy will still carry your games and console.
I find this hard to believe. You can't compete with used game sales by lowering your price. Gamestop can always undercut you.
It's impossible to compete with an identical product at a lower price. Which is why devs have been trying to differentiate the product with activation codes, preorder DLC, etc. You know, all that stuff people were complaining about a month ago.
Photolysis
Banned
1. For simplicity, and if you're going to compare the total profit Gamestop makes it's only fair to consider the total money publisher(s) made.
2. I disagree with the business practices of aggressively selling used games and it's not something I support with my money. Even if we consider it a true "lost sale" for the sake of argument, that's Gamestop's doing, not me. Taking away my rights for Gamestop's actions is ridiculous.
That said, with the margins they have on new games, they are pretty much forced into this to survive, because running a store is expensive. I don't care if they go personally because I never buy games from retail, I buy them online. If that's the way the market goes then so be it. But I can't blame them for going this way when they're being outcompeted by Amazon and such who have far fewer costs.
3. I can. It could have been traded in 5 times and the original publisher still got their $48 cut. If it gets traded in excessively then it suggest it's providing poor long term value for the consumer, so why should I care.
Remember: there is only a used market because people want to trade their games in in the first place. If the number of used games is a problem, then the number of users wanting to trade in your game is a problem. And developers and publishers should be asking themselves why.
Majukun
Member
i agree,that's why i said previously that the used market it's what it's keeping the industry alive in his current state.
basically if you destroy the used market,they are going to earn less,because part of the money i use for buying new games comes from what i get when i resell my older ones...if people are going to use the same amount of money anyway,there are 0 benefits for publishers and developers,and -1 benefits for us
so is this their smart plan?
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
They weren't the exact same versions. Money was spent to upgrade the graphics to make them acceptable to newer audiences. Are you people really going to argue that movies don't have a much longer tail than games? Citizen Kane is a classic and is still making money for the studio on Blu-ray. Who's buying Pong?
Chris Tilton
Member
Although certainly an apt comparison, there's a lot of incorrect assumptions about how the movie and music industries work. I've been in the TV/Film/Music industry for over a decade, and I'd be happy to share what I know, but it doesn't really matter.
However, I agree with the overall sentiment: Used games are good for the industry. They are a good gateway for a lot of people. If you take away the used game option, many will put that money into other things. Either way, EA isn't getting any substantial money from them by sabotaging used games. We should figure out a way to keep it alive in some form.
However, I agree with the overall sentiment: Used games are good for the industry. They are a good gateway for a lot of people. If you take away the used game option, many will put that money into other things. Either way, EA isn't getting any substantial money from them by sabotaging used games. We should figure out a way to keep it alive in some form.
They can compete on price.
When a copy of (say) Bioshock Infinite is $60 on PSN, yet sells for $40 new and $38 used at Gamestop, then publishers aren't competing.
They could always price the digital version cheaper (say at $30 or $35) and thus give consumers a choice.
Do you want it in digital form for $30? or do you want to pay $8 more for a used disc copy?
Hell, publishers could simply choose not to sell to Gamestop, but most don't want to do that as they realize the stores get a lot of foot traffic. It would be like refusing to sell to Walmart.
Publishers already do the exclusive DLC thing with Gamestop so there is a synergistic relationship there. They may not like it, but they seem to need it.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Box Office Tickets + DVD/Blu-Ray Sales are equivalent to a video game sale. It's all the product of the motion picture/game publishing company. And video games still cost significantly more than a ticket plus a Blu-Ray sale.
Licensing deals are the same, you've admitted that.
Rentals? I'd assume roughly the same for motion picture companies as they are for game publishing companies, right?
Royalties? Not sure what "royalties" a motion picture company receives from its films.
TV broadcasts? Okay, you've got a win for the motion picture companies here.
It is impossible to argue with what he said. All the people disagreeing with him did not watch the entire video.
Like this one.
Conciliator
Banned
that sounds like corporate apologist talk to me.
Majukun
Member
if you are saying this,you did not read the entire thread
Gamestop can't undercut digital.
Remember, with retail product Gamestop can ALWAYS SEND BACK unsold new units for full credit. So there is no risk to them there.
With used games, Gamestop has to buy them at a real cost and then sell higher to make a profit. There is a risk to them there.
You act as if there is no cost in remastering an old film for Blu-ray. It's not like you can re-use the VHS or DVD transfer.
One of the key points to TB's argument is that no used games does not mean no sales. 'Look at Steam, lots of great sales all the time! There is no evidence to support no used games means higher prices. Thats bollocks, absolute bollocks!'
But thats Valve. Not Microsoft. Two entirely different beasts, with entirely different attitudes, and its an important distinction. I might have missed it, but I don't think he took that into consideration.
Also, his delivery and way he addresses peoples arguments really pisses me off. Dismissive and arrogant. He comes across as being up his own arse in that video, and a bit of a prick to boot (even though he makes some good points and makes them well). I always enjoyed his "WTF is..." videos but this has really put me off them now. Not because what he's saying I disagree with, but because the way he's saying it.
But thats Valve. Not Microsoft. Two entirely different beasts, with entirely different attitudes, and its an important distinction. I might have missed it, but I don't think he took that into consideration.
Also, his delivery and way he addresses peoples arguments really pisses me off. Dismissive and arrogant. He comes across as being up his own arse in that video, and a bit of a prick to boot (even though he makes some good points and makes them well). I always enjoyed his "WTF is..." videos but this has really put me off them now. Not because what he's saying I disagree with, but because the way he's saying it.
Joseph Merrick
Member
no, it isn't. I do have the right to sell my games. so there, I just brushed aside everything he said too. easily done.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
HD remasters aren't the same versions, sure. But you can't honestly argue that the cost to produce them is anywhere near what it is to create a game from scratch, right? The only additional cost is the programming necessary to upgrade graphics. It's probably not significantly different than the cost to remaster a Blu-Ray such as Lawrence of Arabia.
Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to argue that movies have a substantially longer tail than video games when video games are still in their infancy when compared to film. I hardly think that many of the silent films from the early 1900s are best-sellers on DVD/Blu-Ray either.
Do you honestly think we've seen the last Halo remaster? Microsoft's gonna keep churning that game out for the next 50 years, we just haven't gotten to that point yet for you to see it.
Ace Harding
Member
I don't know that I agree that the used game market is what's keeping the industry alive. Again, the total amount paid isn't going to change. Game prices will adjust, because game companies aren't going to accept reduced sales/revenue.
The difference is that the profit margins going to retailers supporting the used game industry would be shifted to game companies. Those profits are part of the overall game market, and they absolutely affect game prices.
People complain that there's not enough variable pricing for console games built in, that games cost $60 or $50 no matter what. That's not the case. Demand dictates how much people are willing to pay for games, and used game sales/purchases are part of that equation. Without used games, we would see much more variation in new game prices. Used game prices and trade-in values are what helps create the variation now. Games don't really cost $60; they cost $60 less their retained value. Get rid of used games, and there's only the new game price. That price will have to adjust with demand, just as used game prices did.
Only point he didn't really bring up was console gamers sharing used games, but wiith prices so cheap on digital, everyone could easily have their own. Thing is no one trust Microsoft to offer these deals. We'll see.
And while their is talk about developers getting their fair share, now people are saying that they never asked for multi-million dollar game development cost. Alright, yet we expect better graphics every generation. Maybe they don't have cost THAT much, but it's invertible that will will cost more than the previous generation. Still, games still cost 60 bucks, less than some did in the snes, n64 era.
Majukun
Member
but he is arrogant..always has been...
anyway it's not like i'm gonna stop following on his channel just because he has a different opinion than me...on the contrary..most of the time is useful to listen to people who don't agree with you,even just to check if your opinion is correct as you think it is.
PoweredBySoy
Banned
Total agree. Which is why fuck Xbone.
Until you have nothing to sell.
If you read my last two sentences I make it clear I'm not one to dismiss someone just because he has a different opinion than me.
Avoiding conflicts of interests is one of thenmost basic elements of journalism and is taught on all levels. Professional organizations like the NY Times do no allow staff to accept gifts from sources and donate anything they take to charity.
The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics is usully what's taught to most journalists who work with writing. There's a similar code of ethics for video journalism. Tey exist so that viewers will trust the people who give them information and to keep journalists as close to objective as possible.
That's probably something publishers should have thought of before they decided to get in bed with Gamestop with exclusive launch DLC.
Joseph Merrick
Member
I would definitely sell pretty much all the licenses I own for pc games when/if it was possible. it's true. barely any game is worth owning at all anymore, definitely not worth the price I paid for them, so anything I would be able to get back from those licenses I own would be fantastic.
If anything, all this proves it that video game companies need to start thinking outside the box. Movies debut in theaters, musicians have concerts...what component can publishers add to gaming that will go straight to the creators? I notice the OP link didn't mention books, which seem to be thriving with a significant surge in digital, but still offering traditional hard copies that can be sold and re-sold.
PS+, F2P and DLC are good first steps for gaming. Locking out used games would be taking the easy way. They need to be smarter than that. Think different.
Just as a start...
- Organized competitions with entry fees (and thus, prizes for winners)
- Inside looks at creation of a game (visit developers for a day)
- Signings (similar to the way authors do book signings, they would sell so many new copies of a game for people who just want to have a mint condition copy signed)
- Gaming expos (much smaller scale than E3), but have fans pay to enter and give them early access to games
- More prominent gaming merchandise available for sale (clothing, toys, accessories, etc...)
- Access to special perks/dlc/rewards when purchased within the launch week of a given title
Those ideas are literally right off the top of my head. Marketers for these companies sitting down in a room should be able to come up with all of these plus more.
Stop feeling sorry for these greedy publishers. They need to think outside the box instead of screwing over gamers.
PS+, F2P and DLC are good first steps for gaming. Locking out used games would be taking the easy way. They need to be smarter than that. Think different.
Just as a start...
- Organized competitions with entry fees (and thus, prizes for winners)
- Inside looks at creation of a game (visit developers for a day)
- Signings (similar to the way authors do book signings, they would sell so many new copies of a game for people who just want to have a mint condition copy signed)
- Gaming expos (much smaller scale than E3), but have fans pay to enter and give them early access to games
- More prominent gaming merchandise available for sale (clothing, toys, accessories, etc...)
- Access to special perks/dlc/rewards when purchased within the launch week of a given title
Those ideas are literally right off the top of my head. Marketers for these companies sitting down in a room should be able to come up with all of these plus more.
Stop feeling sorry for these greedy publishers. They need to think outside the box instead of screwing over gamers.
"If I want really old titles, I can either find them on abandonware sites or buy them on GOG."
SMH
So he is saying that he can always PIRATE the games, so it's not a problem.
If I would be subscribed to him, I would now unsubscribe. Fucking pirate.
It's even more stupid in case of consoles - because GOG doesn't sell console games and they actually can't really do that at all. Which means his solution would be "pirate all the games lol".
SMH
So he is saying that he can always PIRATE the games, so it's not a problem.
If I would be subscribed to him, I would now unsubscribe. Fucking pirate.
It's even more stupid in case of consoles - because GOG doesn't sell console games and they actually can't really do that at all. Which means his solution would be "pirate all the games lol".
I'm all for it. That should be next.
dragonbane
Member
Exactly. There is nothing more that needs to be said. This Jimquisition also nails it.
Dreamgazer
Member
I see where he is coming from, but that still doesn't warrant it.
A digital purchase should have just more benefits to it, since you giving up the potential to sell it. MS and Sony should just push towards a digital future, but not enforce it by limiting used games.
Think of it like this:
Retail copy: 59.99$
Digital copy: 49.99$
You can either buy the retail version and re-sell it, or get the cheaper digital copy, for which you don't even have to go outside, and can potentially pre-download it and play it on release day 1 minute after mid-night. This will naturally drive more buyers to digital purchases.
Retailers could also sell "codes" for the digital copy at the cheaper price, so they don't have to bear the burden.
This would be a WAY smarter way, then whatever Microsoft is trying to do.
A digital purchase should have just more benefits to it, since you giving up the potential to sell it. MS and Sony should just push towards a digital future, but not enforce it by limiting used games.
Think of it like this:
Retail copy: 59.99$
Digital copy: 49.99$
You can either buy the retail version and re-sell it, or get the cheaper digital copy, for which you don't even have to go outside, and can potentially pre-download it and play it on release day 1 minute after mid-night. This will naturally drive more buyers to digital purchases.
Retailers could also sell "codes" for the digital copy at the cheaper price, so they don't have to bear the burden.
This would be a WAY smarter way, then whatever Microsoft is trying to do.
If used games are eliminated wouldn't it be likely that people would play the multiplayer games they owned longer ( couldn't recoup their money ) and thus extend the burdon on the MP servers? Thus partially negating the argument in the video about used game sales extending the cost related to server maintenance + upkeep etc?
Sorry if this is insane on my part or poorly communicated
Sorry if this is insane on my part or poorly communicated
His last 6 min doesn't factor in the extra liquidity for those who sell used games, but dont buy used games. You cant focus on just the disposable income used games brings, without recognizing the liquidity it gives those who SELL their games.
The underlining difference is such a large factor that it is just to big to ignore. You cant suppose the console market will act the same way as the PC market, when the way a closed system like Sony and MS consoles work are so much different then the PC market. Sure he is admitting he could be wrong, but it just comes across as more of a hatred that he has for retailers more then if it would actually be good for the industry. The last 6 min he effectively shows why his 22 minute argument was nothing more then wishful thinking. His arguments are nothing but fairly baseless anecdotal evidence.
Edit: Everyone should watch the last http://youtu.be/2G_f8YBy39M?t=21m29s bit of his video, where he essentially defeats his own argument, by leaving out the liquidity of the 2nd hand. His claim that the large majority of people who buy used stay in that market, is impossible, because if that was the case, used games would be in short supply because of demand.
He isnt making sense, in that last bit.
The underlining difference is such a large factor that it is just to big to ignore. You cant suppose the console market will act the same way as the PC market, when the way a closed system like Sony and MS consoles work are so much different then the PC market. Sure he is admitting he could be wrong, but it just comes across as more of a hatred that he has for retailers more then if it would actually be good for the industry. The last 6 min he effectively shows why his 22 minute argument was nothing more then wishful thinking. His arguments are nothing but fairly baseless anecdotal evidence.
Edit: Everyone should watch the last http://youtu.be/2G_f8YBy39M?t=21m29s bit of his video, where he essentially defeats his own argument, by leaving out the liquidity of the 2nd hand. His claim that the large majority of people who buy used stay in that market, is impossible, because if that was the case, used games would be in short supply because of demand.
He isnt making sense, in that last bit.
So called "Abandonware" is piracy.
You're downloading and playing a copy of a game without paying for it.
You have no right to that IP.