Support NeoGAF

[Circle T]

20 years ago, when I was in high school, you could get a brand new Honda Civic for under $10k. Now, the cheapest Civic is $18k. As inflation, technology advances, and new safety regulations increased the cost to produce the car, Honda increased the price of each new one sold. They DIDN'T keep the price at $10k, and then expect that every dealership who sells a used Civic give them a cut of the price.

If Publishers/Developers aren't making enough profit with the initial sale of a game, raise the price, like every other industry. If sales drop off too much at those higher prices, and you still aren't profiting, it would appear your cost to produce games is too high. That is your problem to solve, not mine. As mentioned before, EVERY OTHER industry has learned how to continue on without needing a cut of used sales. Time for the video game industry to do the same.

 

[royalan]

Someone with the patience of a saint and the writing skills of a god should engage TB in an email.
Try to get on (down to) his level, pick his arguments apart objectively (should be very easy especially with the car argument and the post sale revenue , for the source of and relevance of his arguments you can just source from faceless007's post) and get him to snap out of this stupor.

This guy has a lot of followers and influence and he's going to do a lot of damage.

LOL - what?

 

[GlamFM]

Agree with him 100%. Sorry GAF.

 

[fatty]

So paying $60 for a disc and case that costs actual pennies makes sense to you. But $60 for nothing but the actual game doesn't?

If with that disc I am able to loan it out or sell it, or in my case play it 20 years from now where it doesn't require an activation by a company that may or may not be around, then yes it is.

 

[Marcel]

Sure, but jumping someone for being a "coprate apologist" simply because they make a pretty cogent argument against used games isn't very smart.

Your reasoning if I recall was that Gamestop sell used games which makes the little baby billion dollar publishers cower in fear. Cogent, sure.

 

[Socky]

Not only do they not have as many revenue streams, game have a MUCH shorter shelf life than something like movies and music because so much of the experience is tied to changing technologies in terms of graphics. While there are some people who don't care about graphics people are not lining up to buy old games. If you put out the original Tomb Raider right now, with no improvements, how many people are going to buy it? Almost no one. Put out the original version of Star Wars on Blu-ray and you'll sell bucketloads.

Pretty sure you just described Star Wars with improvements there. However, I generally agree with your point. Publishers have relentlessly chased graphical improvements over and above AI/gameplay/design innovations and the arms race is now killing them (or more accurately their bottom lines, resulting in them killing off developers). To be fair, we're probably as much at fault for that as they are, and they can hardly back off the race if their competitors are still racing.

Now though, with the graphical capabilities of modern systems on the one hand and the popularity of less technically demanding games, surely it's time for a reappraisal of where games design should be looking. Sure, have the big tent-poles, but broaden the whole concept so games aren't defined by their tech, length, replayability or feature set. Then publishers might not have the same reliance on these giant me-too AAAs and can experiment with smaller, cheaper, more daring titles.

This would be a great time for them to step back from the race and change the paradigm. They won't take it, but they might be pushed into it.

 

[The Crimson Kid]

It isn't that simple to say that just by Steam shutting down the used games market, that led to lower prices.

What Steam did was jumpstart the move to selling PC games digitally. Steam isn't the only vendor of digital PC games in the market due to competition on an open platform, and since there are many vendors of Steam games besides Valve, there is price competition even within the Steam ecosystem.

For proof of this, see how aggressive Amazon has gotten with digital sales in the past year and how GreenManGaming made a name for itself single-handedly on undercutting prices of competitors across the board, even on preorders.

All of these factors serve to drive prices down. It's a fine example of the free market working to benefit customers.

With Microsoft's way of dealing with used games, a fine will either be levied on the consumer or on the store that sold the used game, and Microsoft has monopoly control over pricing on their digital storefront. This market distortion set by Microsoft will hinder price competition for physical copies (a fee for each used game sold gives every store less per sale, which leads to less room for stores to discount their goods) and there will be no pressure from competitors that would lead to lower prices on Xbox Marketplace.

There is no rational reason why prices would fall under Microsoft's model.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

Microsoft's store front competes with Sony's store front.

By that logic, they are also competing with PC game stores such as Steam, which, if that were the case, would mean that everything on Games on Demand wouldn't be so horribly overpriced.

 

[anexanhume]

The same publishers that send him free games and pay to send him on vacation to play games. He's a shill whose arguments are bought by the publishers.

So no games journalist can have a valid opinion on this matter?

 

[charlagame]

First time I've ever seen this guy, but I think he is spot on with what he's saying.

 

[AppleMIX]

Playing in the huge pile of mud that came out of the Xbone reveal doesn't make me believe that he isn't in bed with the publishers that send him on vacation to play video games.

He has constantly shitted all over big publishers. He did a PSA on Sim City severs, talked about how MOH Warfighter is garbage, got on several developers cases for not having FOV sliders.

Your argument is complete shit. Its basically he doesn't agree with me so he is a corporate apologist.

By that logic, they are also competing with PC game stores such as Steam, which, if that were the case, would mean that everything on Games on Demand wouldn't be so horribly overpriced.

But they have had several sales in the last year or so.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

The problems is that used games are way worse than used movies/books/etc. Games cost large sums of money and rely almost solely on selling the product in order to make a profit.

How many people do you know that buy a new movie/book/etc. with the plan to watch/read/etc. that particular piece of media, then turn around and sell it to recoup most of the cost of the media?

People absolutely do that with video games. You take away that ability, and you'll have a lot less people willing to spend $60 on that new release.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

The most you can save on a game at Gamestop that isn't at least 3 years old is $5 or less, but Gamestop is making a billion every quarter though. You guys are okay with this because you can get $20 for your game?

 

[bender]

Anyhow why doesn't Gamestop give publishers a cut now because if they did all this could been avoided.

What risk would the publisher(s) incur to deserve a cut?

 

[Beardz]

I have the solution for this whole used game stuff:

MAKE EVERY GAME FREE!

... BAM!!!

There is your solution.

 

[Majukun]

Right, so what you're saying is you don't know how the system will be structured, you just know you'll hate it.

we just know that we don't want to take the risk.

we took the risk allowing developers and publisher to sell DLC away from the games..they exploited the hell out of it,and now we have games like metro last light who gives as pre order dlc an entire difficulty level/modality..advertised as "the way the game is meant to be played"...as in "we locked behind a paywall the modality we had in mind when we were developing the game"

the fact is,it's more than 6 years that the industry try to solve its problems by screwing more money out of their customers in any way possible.

they are definitely not someone you can trust

 

[SneakyStephan]

LOL - what?

His videos get like 500k views each... he has influence over the part of the community that would be against this the most.
If you have the supposed pro consumer pro gamer people defend this drm shit all it's going to do is divide the community as a whole.

I was pleasantly surprised by how united people on all sides of the console wars were for once after the xb one reveal to defend their own interests and rights for a change, but every time you see some nonody like that PA halfwit on his blog come up with some insulting arguments you see people on here latch on to it.

The whole discussion is becoming so diluted now that people are already getting back into console war mode or petty arguments over semantics.

Meanwhile MS keeps quiet and does their best to obfuscate things, waiting for this to blow over so that the big outlets will stop getting clicks over this and stop reporting it.
As long as we can agree then it isn't going to blow over or go away.

 

[Spike]

Video Games

• Stores push used over new - Making massive profit margins
• Often have to go to specialized stores for used CDs/DVDs. Used games in mainstream stores
• Good as New, no wear and tear (resurfacing)
• post purchase upkeep by Devs/Publishers (servers, patches, customer support)
• Used Sales keep multiplayer communities alive for users, but the associated costs aren't being equitably repaid
• Online Pass/DLC used to monetize used copies
• Microsoft's policy isn't necessarily anti-consumer. They are aimed at Gamestop, not at consumer, but consumer is still affected.
• Retailers have been bullying Devs/Publishers for years into pre-order exclusives, price fixing (forcing digital prices to stay equal to retailer see: base prices on Steam, PSN, eShop)
• Policies are looking to diversify revenue streams much like movies or music

Sorry if this has been pointed out by someone else. I haven't gone through the entire thread yet.

On the first point, if stores are only making $2-3 profit on the sale of the new title, while the publisher gets the rest, then it is understandable that the store is going to push for used sales rather than new. Maybe the pubs should give the store a bigger cut of the initial sale.

On the second point, the copy is simply changing hands. They are neither losing a customer nor gaining one. It evens out, so the associated costs should not be changing. Also, they may be making more since if the original owner bought any DLC, the new owner may rebuy the same DLC.

At least that is the way I look at it.

 

[Marcel]

He has constantly shitted all over big publishers. He did a PSA on Sim City severs, talked about how MOH Warfighter is garbage, got on sever developers cases for not having FOV sliders in videogames.

Your argument is complete shit. Its basically he doesn't agree with me so he is a corporate apologist.

Talking shit about games EVERYONE talked shit about gets him a free pass?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Right, so what you're saying is you don't know how the system will be structured, you just know you'll hate it.

360 has downloadable retail games now. Go check their store and compare it with other retailers. We aren't walking around in the dark here. Madden 13 is still full price on Xbox Live. Its $40 for a retail copy on Amazon, and $20 for the PS3 version. There's no reason to assume that Microsoft are going to change their ways.

Hell, games like Mark Of The Ninja and
Fez don't even have downloadable codes for 360 in places like Amazon. Microsoft know damn well that if you buy the system you'll be locked into buying from them. This isn't the case with PC. Microsoft has zero reason to branch out and include their games in any other service.

 

[Ace Harding]

Couldn't it be true that:

* The used game market doesn't hurt the overall VG market, and;
* Eliminating the used game market wouldn't increase the total amount of money gamers have to spend to purchase the same number of games (because prices would come down)?

People are assuming that eliminating used games wouldn't change game prices, and I don't see why we should accept that assumption.

I don't think demand for new video games is so high that people will start spending more on video games than they would otherwise.

 

[Vice]

So no games journalist can have a valid opinion on this matter?

All opinions are valid but taking gifts or trips from publishers creates a, real or perceived, conflict of interest so you should take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

[staticneuron]

Safety is a key function of an automobile. Recalls are a product of function. I had a recall issued on the blinker actuator in a car once to make it snap back in after a set turn radius. That wasn't an imminent danger to my safety, but it was a big enough problem on GM models for a set number of years to require a nationwide recall.

And again, they aren't rare. The ones significant enough to get mainstream attention are, but every car has dozens of recalls that go on years and years past it's model year.

Safety is an advertised feature and in most cases a requirement by local/government law. There is nothing of that nature in video games new or used.

Not safety, nor a the need to support second hand users without asking for anything in return.

Why does it matter that they are safety related? What relevance is that?

The point is that a car manufacturer also has post-sale obligations to a secondhand buyer, no different than a game publisher. Even if a car recall is "rare," as you put it (to which I disagree), can't we all agree that there is clearly significant cost to a car manufacturer to repair a product that was not directly bought from them, but was nonetheless a product that they made their profit on when it was originally sold to the new purchaser?

Same as above.

Yes, sales of new product certainly decrease over time as the supply of used games weighs down on new sales. But how many new sales do you think they're gonna get on release if people know they're stuck with that game with no option to resell or trade it in a few months later? It cuts both ways. Not every formerly used sale will equal a new sale with DRM, and formerly new sales will likely decrease as well.

And let's stop kidding ourselves about the costs for multiplayer. That's an absolute drop in the bucket compared to game development and marketing costs. Publishers are not living and dying based on the cost to run multiplayer for a handful of years.

You pose a different scenario. But if that happened all that means is that those who buy used perpetually will either buy new or not buy at all. And/or it makes those dependent on used market more judicious with their purchases. I don't see a downside to this.

You say it is a drop it the bucket but it is an additional cost, alongside development and marketing of new games. So it is an issue. Especially if multiple games released over the period of a few years have multiplayer in them. The problem is prolonged and cumulative. Take for instance EA released 100 games in the past year alone.

 

[AppleMIX]

Talking shit about games EVERYONE talked shit about gets him a free pass?

No but it sure as hell doesn't make him a corporate apologist. A corporate apologist would defend those games.

 

[Renesis]

I actually agree with him 100%
But the way Microsoft is going with this is not something I will support.

 

[Violater]

I think he makes some very compelling points, do away with used games, sell games for less.
I would be ok with a $40 new game price point and discounts a couple months down the line.

 

[Marcel]

The most you can save on a game at Gamestop that isn't at least 3 years old is $5 or less, but Gamestop is making a billion every quarter though. You guys are okay with this because you can get $20 for your game?

I sell my games on eBay, lend them to friends, trade etc. I don't care for the way Gamestop treats their employees so I don't support them. However, typing up some derivative argument about how "Gamestop is bad too!" doesn't magically make the harmful anti-consumer precedent of this stuff go away.

 

[Grief.exe]

I think he makes some very compelling points, do away with used games, sell games for less.
I would be ok with a $40 new game price point and discounts a couple months down the line.

Publishers probably won't want to do that either.

 

[Salamando]

How many people do you know that buy a new movie/book/etc. with the plan to watch/read/etc. that particular piece of media, then turn around and sell it to recoup most of the cost of the media?

People absolutely do that with video games. You take away that ability, and you'll have a lot less people willing to spend $60 on that new release.

Their goal is profitability. If it turns out soo many people are buying fewer games that game profitability goes down, they'll either adjust the price or patch out the whole thing. Some people who buy new will stop buying games, but profitability from people who buy used goes up. Damned if I know if the latter generates more profit than the former.

 

[Marcel]

No but it sure as hell doesn't make him a corporate apologist. A corporate apologist would defend those games.

He's got conflict of interest issues out the wazoo. I don't have to believe him and he hasn't done anything to earn my trust in the first place.

 

[kaching]

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?

What would there problem be exactly? That those games aren't worth that much in resale? If so, then they shouldn't have set the original price as high as they did in the first place. This is how resale value always works.

 

[Majukun]

Couldn't it be true that:

* The used game market doesn't hurt the overall VG market, and;
* Eliminating the used game market wouldn't increase the total amount of money gamers have to spend to purchase the same number of games (because prices would come down)?

People are assuming that eliminating used games wouldn't change game prices, and I don't see why we should accept that assumption.

I don't think demand for new video games is so high that people will start spending more on video games than they would otherwise.

these are the same people who are giving you less and less with every releases by charging you with the same price,first pieces of the games,now many games nowadays doesn't have a instruction manual anymore.

why should we think that they will bring the prices down after they got complete control?

 

[anexanhume]

All opinions are valid but taking gifts or trips from publishers creates a, real or perceived, conflict of interest so you should take what he says with a grain of salt.

All journalists do this. When a journalist takes a trip to a company's headquarters to get a sneak peak at their next game (and thus, huge front page feature on gaming mag/website), who do you think is footing that bill?

Are journalists not gamers too? Do you think all the games they want to play are free? Do you think they have unlimited funds so as to not care about MSRP or consumer strategies?

 

[Woggerman]

Edit: revised.

No, because it's bullshit.

Going by your figure of $48:

Publisher in total receives: $192 (the 3 original games being traded, plus the new game that Gamestop purchased off them)
Gamestop receives: $36 (originally purchased new games) + $55*3 (from used sales) - $48 (cost of new game) = $153 (not factoring in overhead like rent etc.)

Customer 1 now has 1 new game, and got to play 3 other games for $180
Customers 2,3,4 have a used game they spent $55 on or whatever

Oh no, the publisher made $192. My heart bleeds.

1. You're assuming, of course, that the 3 traded in games are published by the same publisher of the new game. Which is most likely not the case.
2. I know this is not a well-liked opinion, but it is true, how many of those new copies of the three traded games get sold after the store get's used copies in to sell? I argue that there are some, if not as many, lost sales to the publisher when a cashier says "Don't buy a new one, when we have one for $5 less."
3. What's to say that this is the 2nd or third time a game is traded in. You can no longer say the publisher has received the $48 for it.

Bottom line, there are many variables. However, most lie in the retailers favor. I'm not saying this practice needs to stop. I'm just saying there needs to be a change. This eco-system is not working.

 

[Seronei]

He's got conflict of interest issues out the wazoo. I don't have to believe him and he hasn't done anything to earn my trust in the first place.

How is there a conflict of interest? He doesn't even cover console games. He also clearly stated it's anti-consumer. But with how retailers push used over new so much it's actively harming the developers enough that they want to fight back and this is the result and that he thinks it'll lead to lower prices.

 

[Violater]

Publishers probably won't want to do that either.

Then I will prob skip next gen and keep adding to my Steam backlog.

 

[AppleMIX]

He's got conflict of interest issues out the wazoo. I don't have to believe him and he hasn't done anything to earn my trust in the first place.

Do you not see the fucking jump in logic here?

Sure you don't agree with him but their is a jump in logic from posting a controversial opinion and being a corporate apologist.

 

[Maztorre]

PC has been used-free for a while now and it is constantly expanding. Who is to say the console market cannot follow the same pattern?

Continued publisher greed. It's clear from the racket they want to set up regarding used sales that they want to have their cake and eat it regarding $60 games without replayability, multi-tiered pricing or long-term support. They have had almost 10 years showing multiple examples of successful alternative revenue models on digital platforms, but they have continued to bet big on $60 retail with massively front-loaded sales backed up by extensive DLC. You think they'll change when they have spent a generation propping it up, and now they have a console manufacturer supporting their practices on a hardware level?

 

[PoweredBySoy]

I'm big into renting games, but I'm cool with getting rid of that market. As long as the lower the retail price to $30-40 and don't forget to put shit on sale every once in awhile.

The standard $60 price point has been pretty stupid for awhile now, and it's about to get a whole lot stupiderer.

 

[SonyToo!™]

I agree with most things TB said however the latest Jimiquision added some interesting facts to the debate.

1) While retailer have large markups with used it's totally the opposite with new where they make $1 per new PS3 console and a couple of quid per new game, they make alot more money with sports titles though (no wonder retailers push Fifa so much)

2) MS, EA and co are greedy and aren't Valve, if they have a monopoly they won't do the customer a solid and lower the RRP, infact they would probably charge even more if they could.

Just look at the crap prices of alot of new Origin games (like that $99 Starwars mmo ltd ed pre order)

So if used games are axed retailers need a bigger cut off new games. I originally thought retailers made the same 20-30% as Valve does on Steam.

 

[Raide]

these are the same people who are giving you less and less with every releases by charging you with the same price,first pieces of the games,now many games nowadays doesn't have a instruction manual anymore.

why should we think that they will bring the prices down after they got complete control?

If you could only buy those games in one place and they were expensive, consumers would stop buying them. Money speaks way louder than internet polls and message-boards. Consumers would force them to lower the prices by not spending that kind of cash to keep Publishers like that funded.

 

[Vice]

All journalists do this. When a journalist takes a trip to a company's headquarters to get a sneak peak at their next game (and thus, huge front page feature on gaming mag/website), who do you think is footing that bill?

Are journalists not gamers too? Do you think all the games they want to play are free? Do you think they have unlimited funds so as to not care about MSRP or consumer strategies?

There's a difference between getting access to an event or preview and having the trip paid for or receiving a bag of swag for going.

While swag is often unavoidable, place just send it to you or shove it into your hands for showing up at an event, having a company you cover pay for a trip is completely avoidable.


It creates a conflict of interest in the eyes of readers/viewers, even if the journalist believes they can stay objective.

 

[Ace Harding]

these are the same people who are giving you less and less with every releases by charging you with the same price,first pieces of the games,now many games nowadays doesn't have a instruction manual anymore.

why should we think that they will bring the prices down after they got complete control?

Because the total amount of money people are willing to spend on games isn't going to change. They would either have to accept selling less copies of new games, or reduce prices to fit demand.

If I spend $500 a year on games now, and I'm paying net $35 for a brand new game ($60 less $25 when I sell a game), I'm buying about 14 games a year. I'm not going to suddenly start paying $60 per game and continue to buy 14 games a year and therefore spend $840 a year on games. I'm either going to buy less games to fit my $500 budget, or wait until prices of new games come down.

Edit: This thread seems to help illustrate my point:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=569713

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

He's arguing something that MS isn't doing. They're not going to lower costs, they're not trying to attack Gamestop.

First off the industry as a whole should look at ways of finding avenues of revenue that doesn't annoy and piss off the user base. So no, season passes, and online passes isn't the way. If you DID lower the costs of games you WOULD reduce the strong argument these resellers have regarding buying used and wanting to sell your games to get back onto the next fix. Also you could slow the massive fall of game prices after a game launches. Let them hold their value more. Its not like a movie that is a couple years old suddenly is 1/4 the cost of a new movie

If games were $20 you'd have less used games. Your resell wouldn't be worth it to stores, and people would be less inclined to buy used to save a couple bucks. But there'd still be a market for rare out of stock and high in demand games ala ebay

However everything MS is rumored to do is track and lock gamers from selling games on their own, or lending, etc. It actually is setup to reward Gamestop (cuts out competition as being one of the select few privileged stores to resell their games). MS/publishers apply a used tax and get a taste of the used game sells.

None of that tax needs online authentication, or license transfers, etc. MS could just as easily apply this tax to the major resellers now if they so choose, and lose the online checks, and locked down of games to discs.

 

[Marcel]

Do you not see the fucking jump in logic here?

Sure you don't agree with him but their is a jump in logic from posting a controversial opinion and being a corporate apologist.

TotalBiscuit is happy with me having less rights to what I can do with my physical disc. He is justifying the anti-consumer behavior of a company that wants even stricter control over prices. Microsoft has done nothing to earn people's trust. Why apologize or argue for their greed?

 

[Woggerman]

At that point it's none of the publisher's God damn business. They made their sale on those traded in games back when they were popular titles.

At that point in the life of a game, no one is going to be buying those (now pre-owned) games at full price. You walk into a Gamestop today and look for a copy of...say...Blur for the Xbox 360. You think buying a new copy is even an option? Or let's say it's something more recent like the latest Gears game. Sure, that will sell a few new copies, but overall the window of opportunity for that game is closed. It's like a new movie opening that makes most of it's money in the first or second weekend. It's crazy to me there are people who think gamers will continue to pay $60 for unopened b-tier games months or years after they came to market.

No one is saying they will be willing to pay the full price of a game a month or two after release. Comparing it to a movie opening is ridiculous as a studio will receive money from Bluray sales, licensing deals, rentals, royalties and TV broadcasts down the line. Other than licensing deals, what does a video game publisher receive?

 

[AppleMIX]

TotalBiscuit is happy with me having less rights to what I can do with my physical disc. He is justifying the anti-consumer behavior of a company that wants even stricter control over prices. Microsoft has done nothing to earn people's trust. Why apologize or argue for them?

He wasn't arguing for Microsoft, he's arguing against gamestop.

 

[Seronei]

He's arguing something that MS isn't doing. They're not going to lower costs, they're not trying to attack Gamestop.

Likely if they didn't play ball Gamestop wouldn't stock Xbox games. So them doing deals with GameStop is because they can't afford to not be there if they didn't have to worry about that they'd likely just make it not resell able at all.
But to say that GameStop isn't the problem with the used market is just wrong. Games sold outside the common retailers are such a small percent that they don't matter.

 

[anexanhume]

There's a difference between getting access to an event or preview and having the trip paid for or receiving a bag of swag for going.

While swag is often unavoidable, place just send it to you or shove it into your hands for showing up at an event, having a company you cover pay for a trip is completely avoidable.


It creates a conflict of interest in the eyes of readers/viewers, even if the journalist believes they can stay objective.

Give me evidence that they try to avoid it/ see it as necessary. These guys aren't doing government work. There's no kickback laws.

Sure, it's a potential conflict of interest, but I don't see evidence to suggest some journalists completely avoid it. The ones that do are probably the not well known ones that don't have those opportunities.

 

[Marcel]

He wasn't arguing for Microsoft, he's arguing against gamestop.

As I've continued to say, Gamestop isn't the main problem. Greedy publishers are.