Support NeoGAF

[TheDarkKnight774]

Also the industry could help itself by reworking not only the game budgets but scope of their games.

I really think there's a strong market for 5 hour high production value games for $15 or so. Take the concept of the iOS models of scaled budgets (but not the style of games or in some cases quality) and apply it to the rest. Go minimalistic. Games like Journey proved the concept of a single sit down game experience meant more than some padded and bloated $60 games.

Cut multi unless you want the risk or think you can be one of the 5 games that can sustain the feature.

Instead of coming up with new packed options, content, gameplay modes, etc to justify a $60 game (that crashes in price 2 weeks after launch and significantly raise your budgets) find something you do, do well and pair it down to its core essence and sell the hell out of that.

I'm not saying cut all large epic games. There's some that will be successful but change what it means to have meaningful console/pc game experiences. Especially these AAA games.

 

[jmdajr]

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.

The dude said there was some bullshit about how either publishers/or retailers prevent digital versions from being chapter then physical ones.

 

[Knux-Future]

It's really not about used games for me... It's about nit being able to lend games or even use games on various systems. Also steam is such a shit excuse too... Shit is okay there because stuff is cheap si trading or selling something yiu get fir 10 bucks is pointless... But 60 dollar physical items... Are a lot harder to just deal with.

 

[Majukun]

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.

many people that are there paying games full price at day one are there because they got some of their money back reselling the game,and so now they have "only" to add 20 dollars/euros instead of sixty..it's a huge difference for a customer,that makes him more wilingly to put MORE mney into the industry...if someone pays 60 dollars and he can't get any of these back,he will just pass,if he gets 40 dollars back,he may be tempted to add 20 "new" dollars/euros to buy the game he was waiting for for 6 months.

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.

that's an assumption.we can't say how the industry wil evolve after they get rid of the used market..all we know is that they have screwed us for years,and there's no reason to think they will not do it again,and also that give to a multi-national complete control over the price of something is NEVER a good idea...even steam is not the only digital games service of the world...and even if it's becoming progressively more rare,you can still buy a physichal copy of a pc game...competition it's what dictates price more than anything,and the used game market is competition too.

what the "industry" wants is to solve all its problems by letting the customers pay for them,while they keep counting money

 

[jimi_dini]

How are you claiming abandonware or GoG to be piracy?

abandonware is another word for piracy. GOG has not even a few percent of all the old titles, which means it's not a real solution most of the time. And GOG doesn't offer any console titles at all - because that's just impossible.

For example - try to look for a typical Sierra classic - "Castle of Dr. Brain". Not available on GOG. There is no classic collection. There is nothing. Which means his solution would be piracy.

The current legal solution is eBay. If back then publishers would have blocked it already, there wouldn't be a way nowadays to get such games AT ALL (besides piracy).

WHICH also means there wouldn't be a reason for anyone to reimplement old game engines - like ScummVM does. Additionally in case of perfect DRM, those games would get lost forever - unless of course the owner of the IP rights sees some value in the game and let's someone sell it (again).

 

[Syriel]

The dude said there was some bullshit about how either publishers/or retailers prevent digital versions from being chapter then physical ones.

Said "bullshit" are distribution agreements that the publishers made with stores like Gamestop.

They basically agreed not to compete with GS when they made those agreements and now, they're complaining that they can't compete with GS.

 

[Dreamgazer]

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.

abandonware is another word for piracy. GOG has not even a few percent of all the old titles, which means it's not a real solution most of the time. And GOG doesn't offer any console titles at all - because that's just impossible.

For example - try to look for a typical Sierra classic - "Castle of Dr. Brain". Not available on GOG. There is no classic collection. There is nothing. Which means his solution would be piracy.

I stand corrected.

Didn't realize abandonware is not in the public domain.

 

[BlastProcessing]

You know, it's heartening to finally see someone brave enough to step up and defend multi-billion dollar corporations. Nobody stands up for the big guy these days.

 

[Zukuu]

The dude said there was some bullshit about how either publishers/or retailers prevent digital versions from being chapter then physical ones.

Because there is no business model for digital version purchased from retailers yet. That's why a new console generation would have been the perfect point, to push it. I mean, M$ is trying to incorporate their weird "licencing / de-licencing" system onto retailers, which I'd think would require a MUCH bigger effort.

It's nothing else but a "collectors edition" vs "normal edition". You get one cheaper than the other, but with less physical content. The main product remains the same.
You get a booklet, a physical copy, the right to sell the game, the cd and the cover vs JUST the game as digital copy, but cheaper. And with the cody-selling (like PSN/XBL code cards) the retailers still get their share. If they want to make it more appealing, just make the PSN / XBL version (which you get at their stores) 54.99$ for a limited duration.

 

[jmdajr]

You know, it's heartening to finally see someone brave enough to step up and defend multi-billion dollar corporations. Nobody stands up for the big guy these days.

Skip to last page!

 

[KingFire]

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.

Or did we?

Look at how well received and sold AAA blockbusters. People were jizzing over Uncharted and Crysis 3 screenshots and videos.

We want explosions; we want big games; and we want CGI-like graphics. How do I know? Gamers voted with their wallets for these huge blockbusters.

 

[Ace Harding]

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.

I totally agree with this, though possibly for a different reason. I still think shifting to eliminate 3rd-party used games sales would bring down new game prices, but the PR impact (the initial public perception) would be much worse. In your proposed scenario, people would have a choice. I think a lot of people would go for the $49.99 DDL instead of the $59.99 physical copy, even though the digital copy can actually be more expensive since it has zero retained monetary value. The $10 "lost" by MS and the publishers probably more than makes up for what they'd lose when someone buys a used game instead of a new game.

This would make MS guarantee lower prices up front, which is what everyone thinks will definitely NOT happen. IMO its a win-win.

 

[Tellaerin]

Who knows, but it clearly cuts into their profit margins.

So their profit margins should take precedence over my rights as a consumer.

I see.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Remember that video he posted when he told people to call him out if they felt like he was becoming a corporate shill?

 

[KingFire]

"Consumers do not necessarily have a right to purchase used games or indeed sell them."
Then he brushes off everybody who disagrees in the next sentence.

Well damn, unsubbed.

Legally, he is right.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Or did we?

Look at how well received and sold AAA blockbusters. People were jizzing over Uncharted and Crysis 3 screenshots and videos.

We want explosions; we want big games; and we want CGI-like graphics. How do I know? Gamers voted with their wallets for these huge blockbusters.

Except when they don't, which is the vast majority of time...
95 percent of these 'AAA' B movie games bomb, even when they throw 100m marketing budgets at them to scam people into buying something they don't really want.

I guess you're one of those people who see cod sales and scream ME TOO, ME TOO, ME TOO!
Those people deserve what they get, overdue mortgages and sleepless nights and debt.

 

[KingFire]

So their profit margins should take precedence over my rights as a consumer.

I see.

It is not your right except in some places in EU. Have you ever read an EULA? Go ahead and see what your rights and liabilities are.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

I can see the video game industry in a dilemma to. People* want these giant AAA eye-popping 1080p productions that cost tens of millions to make yet:

- They don't want to pay more than $60 a game, and that is already "way to much"
- They don't want in game advertising
- They want new games to be longer and fancier, yet cheaper
- They want to be able to buy and sell used games to save their own money
- They want developers and publishers to maintain games and servers forever
- They don't want "games as a service" they want to own the games
- They don't want to pay for DLC and/or microtransactions ("DLC on disc LOL")

Game prices have remained stagnant or even gone down over the years. I paid $89 for Wing Commander 2 on launch day, by rights a new game these days should cost me $150 but instead they have been $59.99 for years now. Even taking into account just since Xbox1/PS2 years, a $60 game then should cost $70, but it doesn't.

Where does the money come from?

* Before I hear about smaller games, risk taking innovative/indie games, etc, remember you guys aren't "people". The fact you bother to even read let alone post on a video game forum makes you significantly more "hard core" than most other players. In my mind most regular gamers aren't interested in these crazy looking indie titles, they just want more COD, and the sales reflect that.

 

[jmdajr]

So what is everyone going to do when it finally becomes all digital?

It's inevitable.

The PC gamers are laughing basically. Granted they are most definitely going to get a much better deal than this transition.

 

[TheD]

Wow, TB has finally showed what a retarded moron he is.

I am extremely disappointed with him.

 

[Palette Swap]

Stores push used over new - Making massive profit margins

I don't like defending guys like Gamestop or Game, but from what I've gathered from small, local, independent stores over the years, they all pretty much needed to have a used section if they even wanted to make a living in the first place, given the very slim margins they had over new stuff.
And given that up until recently, this industry relied on these retail distribution channels to even see money, it's a bit two faced to complain about used margins now.

 

[jmdajr]

I can see the video game industry in a dilemma to. People* want these giant AAA eye-popping 1080p productions that cost tens of millions to make yet:

.

Lets just have Pil Fish makes all our games. Sending Indie developers to an early grave.

 

[Majukun]

Or did we?

Look at how well received and sold AAA blockbusters. People were jizzing over Uncharted and Crysis 3 screenshots and videos.

We want explosions; we want big games; and we want CGI-like graphics. How do I know? Gamers voted with their wallets for these huge blockbusters.

sadly it's true..but if the industry is at stake,some eggs should be broken...what i can't accept is that the eggs must always come from the user's basket.

they also wanted these kind of games to succees,because making good graphics takes much less skill then making good gameplay or level design.

they should go back to concentrate on making good gameplay instead of graphics...less costs,and if the game is good,the players are going to keep it instead of throwing it away at the nearest gamestop because after you played it one time the game it's useless.

 

[GuardianE]

So what is everyone going to do when it finally becomes all digital?

It's inevitable.

The PC gamers are laughing basically. Granted they are most definitely going to get a much better deal than this transition.

Switch to PC.

 

[Ace Harding]

many people that are there paying games full price at day one are there because they got some of their money back reselling the game,and so now they have "only" to add 20 dollars/euros instead of sixty..it's a huge difference for a customer,that makes him more wilingly to put MORE mney into the industry...if someone pays 60 dollars and he can't get any of these back,he will just pass,if he gets 40 dollars back,he may be tempted to add 20 "new" dollars/euros to buy the game he was waiting for for 6 months.

Exactly! If people are saying "I am not willing to pay $60 for a new game if I can't sell it later and recover some of that cost," then why would companies continue to charge $60? They would only be hurting themselves as they watched sales drop.

that's an assumption.we can't say how the industry wil evolve after they get rid of the used market..all we know is that they have screwed us for years,and there's no reason to think they will not do it again,and also that give to a multi-national complete control over the price of something is NEVER a good idea...even steam is not the only digital games service of the world...and even if it's becoming progressively more rare,you can still buy a physichal copy of a pc game...competition it's what dictates price more than anything,and the used game market is competition too.

what the "industry" wants is to solve all its problems by letting the customers pay for them,while they keep counting money

They do have control over what they charge, but we have control over what we'll pay. Its not really an "assumption" that prices would go down if people didn't spend more money (net) per game. I guess my major assumption is that people would not just increase the overall amount of money they spend on games (thereby allowing game companies to continue to charge $60 and retain the same sales).

 

[Killing_Joke]

I personally believe the used market isn't hurting anyone. Worked at Gamestop for 2 years and damn near every AAA sold 99% at new for the first few weeks. Hell, sometimes it would take a good month to finally get a decent amount of used popular games. There are exceptions though like sports games. Which is why i'm sure EA started the stupid online pass and most likely worked closely with MS with used drm.

They make money and MS for some reason believes they deserve some of it. Despite GS doing all the dirty work. Just can't believe GS doesn't have the balls to fight this.MS and publishers use GS as a reason the industry is in shit when it's not. It's their own damn faults.

 

[KingFire]

Except when they don't, which is the vast majority of time...
95 percent of these 'AAA' B movie games bomb, even when they throw 100m marketing budgets at them to scam people into buying something they don't really want.

Most games bomb and AAA blockbusters are no exception. I mean look at what people buy and talk about mostly. Expensive blockbusters like Battlefield 4, Uncharted, Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, COD, and GTA.

People voted with their wallets for these huge blockbusters. And publishers naturally listened. Once people stop spending most of their gaming money on these games and focus on smaller, low-budget titles, then we can expect the blockbuster model to slowly go away.

 

[Tellaerin]

It is not your right except in some places in EU. Have you ever read an EULA? Go ahead and see what your rights and liabilities are.

Let's see how well those EULAs stand up to a real legal challenge.

 

[StudioTan]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094H8H6O/?tag=neogaf0e-20

73 games for 47 bucks. Meanwhile Citizen Kane Blu-ray is $37. Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[royalan]

I can see the video game industry in a dilemma to. People* want these giant AAA eye-popping 1080p productions that cost tens of millions to make yet:

- They don't want to pay more than $60 a game, and that is already "way to much"
- They don't want in game advertising
- They want new games to be longer and fancier, yet cheaper
- They want to be able to buy and sell used games to save their own money
- They want developers and publishers to maintain games and servers forever
- They don't want "games as a service" they want to own the games
- They don't want to pay for DLC and/or microtransactions ("DLC on disc LOL")

Game prices have remained stagnant or even gone down over the years. I paid $89 for Wing Commander 2 on launch day, by rights a new game these days should cost me $150 but instead they have been $59.99 for years now. Even taking into account just since Xbox1/PS2 years, a $60 game then should cost $70, but it doesn't.

Where does the money come from?

* Before I hear about smaller games, risk taking innovative/indie games, etc, remember you guys aren't "people". The fact you bother to even read let alone post on a video game forum makes you significantly more "hard core" than most other players. In my mind most regular gamers aren't interested in these crazy looking indie titles, they just want more COD, and the sales reflect that.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

[unbias]

It is not your right except in some places in EU. Have you ever read an EULA? Go ahead and see what your rights and liabilities are.

Just because it is in a EULA doesn't mean everything in a EULA would stand up in court. Just most of what the EULA covers isnt worth going after a company for, to most people. Also, who cares if it is your "right" or not. If the mentality is healthy for the industry it should be encouraged. Just because you have gaming press or industry people explain why they think used games hurts the market, in no way proves that is a reality.

 

[Marcel]

So what is everyone going to do when it finally becomes all digital?

It's inevitable.

The PC gamers are laughing basically. Granted they are most definitely going to get a much better deal than this transition.

I have one foot in the PC environment already. If it's gonna be the digital walled garden for consoles, I'll take the seasonal digital dollar menu on Steam instead.

 

[StopMakingSense]

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.

Indeed. lol.

 

[unbias]

Most games bomb and AAA blockbusters are no exception. I mean look at what people buy and talk about mostly. Expensive blockbusters like Battlefield 4, Uncharted, Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, COD, and GTA.

People voted with their wallets for these huge blockbusters. And publishers naturally listened. Once people stop spending most of their gaming money on these games and focus on smaller, low-budget titles, then we can expect the blockbuster model to slowly go away.

Huh? This generation people have been talking about the lower budget stuffm ore then ever. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise. The indy/kickstarter seen has seen huge amounts of growth this gen, as well as the middle ware in the PC market.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Prices on Origin give me zero hope the Xbone game prices will be less than the 360 generation.

 

[mbmonk]

73 games for 47 bucks. Meanwhile Citizen Kane Blu-ray is $37. Thank you for illustrating my point.

What was your point?

You asked who was buying Pong. I showed you it's still being bought by consumers. Thus still has a revenue stream.

 

[jmdajr]

I have one foot in the PC environment already. If it's gonna be the digital walled garden for consoles, I'll take the seasonal digital dollar menu on Steam instead.

What I don't get why it get's a free pass. Steam is technically also anti-conusmer.

I guess if you offer something cheap enough people are willing to give up their "freedom."

 

[BlastProcessing]

Skip to last page!

I posted on the first page!

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

73 games for 47 bucks. Meanwhile Citizen Kane Blu-ray is $37. Thank you for illustrating my point.

What was your point?

His point was that no one is buying Pong these days. So... yeah, his point was not illustrated.

 

[KingFire]

I can see the video game industry in a dilemma to. People* want these giant AAA eye-popping 1080p productions that cost tens of millions to make yet:

- They don't want to pay more than $60 a game, and that is already "way to much"
- They don't want in game advertising
- They want new games to be longer and fancier, yet cheaper
- They want to be able to buy and sell used games to save their own money
- They want developers and publishers to maintain games and servers forever
- They don't want "games as a service" they want to own the games
- They don't want to pay for DLC and/or microtransactions ("DLC on disc LOL")

Game prices have remained stagnant or even gone down over the years. I paid $89 for Wing Commander 2 on launch day, by rights a new game these days should cost me $150 but instead they have been $59.99 for years now. Even taking into account just since Xbox1/PS2 years, a $60 game then should cost $70, but it doesn't.

Where does the money come from?

* Before I hear about smaller games, risk taking innovative/indie games, etc, remember you guys aren't "people". The fact you bother to even read let alone post on a video game forum makes you significantly more "hard core" than most other players. In my mind most regular gamers aren't interested in these crazy looking indie titles, they just want more COD, and the sales reflect that.

Excellent post. Blockbusters are selling well; Why do people expect that to change if they continue to buy these games? I mean even in GAF. I go to some thread about who buys yearly updates of games and I see most posters buy COD yearly. Then I check the post history of some of these posters and apparently they criticize the industry for trying to imitate COD. In fact, many of these hypocrites criticize COD itself yet they happily pay yearly for it.

Their excuse? "My friends have it bah." Man the fuck up people.

 

[Version 3.0]

It is impossible to argue with what he said.

No, it isn't. His blanket statement that we don't have the right to sell games, firstly, is a giant assumption that he provides no backup for. It contradicts the entire history of capitalism, for starters, 40+ years of practical evidence to the contrary for games specifically, and laws on the books and specific rulings as well.

Downloaded games have created a grey area only because the immediate ability to re-sell these doesn't exist, and the legal system is slow to react. Now that grey area is seeping over to physical media with on-disc games requiring Steam, GFWL, etc, and now apparently with the Xbox One.

But for 40 years, that right was legally upheld.

And his only real argument to the contrary is that it's "hurting the industry". That, also, is a giant assumption. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, but every discussion about used games always starts with this assumption. When the base of your reasoning isn't even proven, the rest of your argument is moot.

Aside from that, though, a practice that "loses sales" for a company is not inherently wrong. This has become a magical explanation for anything in recent years. If it's "costing money", it has to go. That is absurd.

In this specific industry, any form of game sharing where money is not involved, whether it's between family members, friends, online trading (there's a thread here on GAF for that), etc "loses" more money than a transaction at Gamestop, where money may flow back into new game revenue (which is why they're the #1 new game retailer). But no one is vilifying a family that has 2 children using 1 game.

His arguments may sound reasoned, but they exist in a vacuum of denial. They're based on false assumptions, and they ignore one simple truth:

No matter how unique this business may be, it does not deserve its own set of rules, and it should not and does not change the rights of consumers.

 

[StudioTan]

What was your point?

That movies can earn money for the studios for decades whereas even marginally significant video game revenues can dry up in a couple of years, sometimes months.

His point was that no one is buying Pong these days. So... yeah, his point was not illustrated.

The point was not that literally no one is buying it, just that the actual revenue generated is insignificant. Stop trying to be pedantic.

 

[BlackJace]

Erroneous argument from TotalBiscuit. Why should I sympathize with a bunch of corporate suits who are at a round table right this second thinking about new ways to fuck me over? Why should I accept even less rights that I have with the physical disc I own?

The gaming industry is a multibillion dollar entity. The seventh generation has seen numerous rises in methods crafted by publishers to squeeze every last dollar out of us: DLC and all its variants, season passes, online passes, etc. If the industry wants to continue to ignore its self-inflicted, festering wounds while continuing to blame consumers, watch as I stand by and not shed a tear when it all comes crashing down on them.

I'm the consumer, goddamit. I'm part of the lifeblood of this industry. My only job is to purchase games, therefore stimulating the industry. By no means did I sign up to being held accountable when a bloated, over budgeted game fails to break even, what with its 3 million unit sales over a month.

How dare anybody try and rationalize this being good for the industry, and the consumers as a whole. What would be good is for our immature industry to look at itself in the mirror and start asking itself what it's doing wrong. We're running into a fucking burning building, and its going to come down soon. More job loss, more cut backs, more risk adverse publishers, more focus tests, more advertising campaigns, more shills, more clones, more brown. At this rate the industry cannot, and will not sustain itself. Meanwhile other sectors of electronic and multimedia entertainment are finding ways to thrive without pissing on its userbase. So no, I will not shed a tear when the industry croaks because it isn't even the same industry I fell in love with. It's a completely different and bloated beast.

But I guess it's just my fault for lending my friend a copy of Metal Gear Rising, eh?

 

[Shai-Tan]

I like how the publishers are greedy, as if people arguing for used games here aren't trying to serve their own (perceived) interest

 

[unbias]

What I don't get why it get's a free pass. Steam it's technically also anti-conusmer.

I guess if you offer something cheap enough, people are willing to give up their "freedom."

Valve as a company competing with their service in a open system vs the publicly traded companies that would have firm control of the console market isnt even a little comparable. Steam(unless a Publisher forces it, whcih would be on the publisher not Valve) is not anti consumer, becuase the service it offers is a choice, not something forced onto the market. In fact it saved the market at a time when selling you game+cd key was easily done. Since then it has had a lot of competition in the PC market.

 

[jmdajr]

No matter how unique this business may be, it does not deserve its own set of rules, and it should not and does not change the rights of consumers.

In a future all digital world, what are your "rights?"

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

What I don't get why it get's a free pass. Steam is technically also anti-conusmer.

I guess if you offer something cheap enough people are willing to give up their "freedom."

Steam/Valve get a "pass" because they have precautions in place that will allow you to play their games if you were to wake up tomorrow to Steam being permanently shut down.

And I've probably paid > $30 once in my entire life as a PC gamer.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Ok, let's break down the money aspect of this idea that it goes to new games.
Let's say Gamestop offers a trade in 3 get a new $60 game for free.

]You trade in 3 games(which are usually still fairly new and at full retail price) at $20 each, which Gamestop will turn around at sell at $50-$55 used.
Ok, so the publisher sees $48 from the sale of a new game and Gamestop receives $90-$105 from the resale of the used games that were traded in for that one new game.

Do you see a problem with that from the publisher's point of view?

The thing is though, like you said, with Gamestop the trade-in credit values are so ridiculous that, at least for me, trading in a game will be used to offset the cost of a new game not completely eliminate the total cost. I mean let's just take your example of the trade in three get a game free. If you buy a new game at Gamestop its value immediately drops off a cliff past day one. In two weeks you are lucky to get even $30 on trade-in. After a month, you are probably looking at $15 to $20. So assuming that you purchased three new games for $180 within one month you probably can afford to purchase your next game new and wouldn't want to get a $60 return on an original $180 investment. I'm sure that there are people that do that, but for me there's a certain point where it's not even worth trading a game in if I'm not getting an appreciable return. If I go out today and buy three brand new games, I'm not trading all three in a month later just to get one new game. I might trade one in if I didn't like the game to reduce the price of the new game, but I'm not trading all of them in. If I did that my game collection would rapidly turn to zero games.

I MIGHT be open to a compromise whereby consumers are still able to lend or borrow games with one another, but publishers get a cut if the game is traded into and then sold used at Gamestop to prevent them from price undercutting, but only if publishers are willing to offer more variable pricepoints than the standard $60 and game prices go down and not up.

 

[Amir0x]

If the industry 'surviving' means no used games and giving up physical property rights, then the industry does not deserve to survive. It's that simple.

IF the industry wants to...

diversify revenue streams

...then maybe, before we get to this point where we give up our rights as consumers willingly for no appreciable return, it's time to re-evaluate the whole goddamn metric you used to determine the economics of making games in the first place, hm?

MAYBE it's time to fucking cut out those Willem Dafoe and Ellen Page starring roles, hm? Maybe it's time to STOP releasing every fucking goddamn game with some bullshit multiplayer mode nobody fucking wants on this goddamn fucking planet so that you don't have to keep spending money with servers and upkeep? Maybe it's time we get back to the old days, when you released a fucking game without a billion fucking bugs before it even comes out, and you let your consumers beta test the shit out of it for six months before the platform even gets a functional version? Hm, Bethesda? Perhaps it's time to drop the sixteen string orchestras and 9 hours of voiced cutscenes for your ego-driven abomination of a story if you're the type of business survival depends on whether or not your game sells 18 million units to break even? Maybe it's time to stop nickel and diming customers, so they don't get into the game expecting to be ass fucked with 19 paid on disc DLCs that you're shunting away from customers just to be a bunch of withering fuckwads? Hm, maybe you could do that between all the fucking whining and bullshit you've done this past week, blaming everyone else for your misfortune but your own goddamn self?

MAYBE, EA, as you fucking turned Dead Space 3 into a franchise nobody wanted; maybe, EA, as you release five hundred 'EA partner' titles with no marketing, no support, and ridiculous budgets considering their market appeal, you'd decide to change your strategy? MAYBE if we fucking did what they said, none of this would happen? MAYBE if Insomniac Games didn't focus test any personality out of their generic 4-team shooter that I already played sixteen other times this generation, it wouldn't be walking head long into super bomba territory?

Maybe SquareEnix would decide they didn't want to disembowel the Hitman franchise and everything it stood for? Maybe they wouldn't decide that it needed 5 million units, 'cause since when is that the fucking Hitman series sales ability? Don't even get me fucking started on Tomb Raider. Are you serious with this shit? Maybe stop hiring the Lara Croft models, the Californication actresses, maybe stop spend 100 goddamn million on a series that traditional sells 3 million like clockwork?

MAYBE if Activision didn't beat us over the head with a new Call of Duty game every other day, and maybe if half the industry didn't stumble over themselves trying to pathetically copy it to victory? When we're sitting here in seven years wondering why Call of Duty is no longer selling one trillion units every day, will we say it was the gamers fault for milking the shit out of the series until nobody ever cared anymore? I'm sure it was the gamers fault for all the other series they drove into the ground. No names required!

Perhaps if Ubisoft didn't spend year round molesting the Assassin's Creed franchise piece by piece with their behemoth 900 man teams clacking together soulless voyages down destroyed concepts, we'd have a more reasonable economic structure in place. Or delaying a complete game on platforms that were starving for titles for no reasonable return? Or turning Splinter Cell into a completely different series so all the good will for it evaporates? Are we responsible for that too?

But most of all... maybe if EVERY FUCKING STUDIO in this failed industry stopped wishing they were a fucking part of Hollywood, things would get simpler? You ain't hollywood, assholes.

I want big games. But not everyone can make big games and survive. And not only that, maybe some developers have completely misinterpreted what many of us meant by 'big games.' Perhaps it does not mean 500 person teams and celebrity roles, it means diverse gameplay opportunities presented in a nonlinear fashion. Maybe it means instead of corridors, you design more complicated structures for gameplay scenarios to play out... like games had in the 90s, when life was easier and things were cheaper.

And maybe I'm completely wrong. But what IS clear is that there is a billion different strategies developers and publishers could have adopted as things started heading down this path to avoid fucking us in the ass just so they could 'survive.' If we need to give up such basic fundamental rights in order to have the industry survive, then they need to die.

 

[mbmonk]

That movies can earn money for the studios for decades whereas even marginally significant video game revenues can dry up in a couple of years, sometimes months.

Considering PONG is decades old, I am not following how this proves your point?

I apologize if I am missing something obvious or have not followed your post clearly.