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

Total Biscuit arguing for no used game sales

Bold - I'm not sure how you don't understand why this is different. You were not forced to use steam, unless you wanted Valve games. If nobody wanted to use steam, steam wouldnt be around. You really are not making much sense here.

As for the rest, PC never had a large market for PC games, I'm not sure why you think this. Even back in the early 90's used games was never a business venture, it was just additive to what you already had. The reason used games are near non existent today is because PC market for used games just wasn't there. The demand was to low to maintain any semblance of profit. All you have to do is go back when you were younger and walking through funcoland to remember how small the PC used market was. Hell, Chips and Bits didnt even deal in used pc games.

You don't have to choose Xbone or PS4 if you want used then. It is the same logic I guess. I mean the Wii U is still available. Want PS4 or Xbone games? Well you must accept their ecosystems.

You have data on the bolded? I remember differently but again I don't have data. The whole market (used/new) was pretty small but at least I remember buying many PC games used as a kid.
 
Bold - I'm not sure how you don't understand why this is different. You were not forced to use steam, unless you wanted Valve games. If nobody wanted to use steam, steam wouldnt be around. You really are not making much sense here.

As for the rest, PC never had a large market for PC games, I'm not sure why you think this. Even back in the early 90's used games was never a business venture, it was just additive to what you already had. The reason used games are near non existent today is because PC market for used games just wasn't there. The demand was to low to maintain any semblance of profit. All you have to do is go back when you were younger and walking through funcoland to remember how small the PC used market was. Hell, Chips and Bits didnt even deal in used pc games.

Thank you. This is exactly why we are standing up with hashtags and what have you. This is the problem behind it all. If the DRM model would be a competition pricing model to the actual used market model and it would "run" seperately and push the boundaries of "discounted game sales", "summer sale", "midweek madness" without actually forcing us to use it I would be totally fine with it. Because I have the power of selection; the power of options. I can choose whether or not I want to buy discounted new games or I just choose the used games markets.

If the new pricing model using DRM only products is so outstanding mighty fine why the heck wouldn't you just run it separately but synchronous and just let all of us join you slowly but constantly, because it's would be just that much better. These are the basics of competition. First semester of Business Administration or Economics. There has to be some monopolistic idea behind DRM to get our freedom of choice out of the way. To raise the yield. To make more money.
 
Used PC games were never ever that big, and started falling off the cliff around 1999-2000 or so when online CD KEY checks for multiplayer games came into play. The only real market was consumer to consumer and that was very small.

Steam got its legitimacy around in the 2007-ish timeframe and Bioshock followed by the Orange Box and finally entered the started the current " post-World of Warcraft" era.

So if the market was not that big (any data btw?), it is okay to kill it?
 
What an unbearably sanctimonious prat. He should go back to quietly suckling the free games from his digital teat and leave fretting over customer concerns to actual customers.
 
i think the constant shadow of piracy has some effect on pc sales, not to mention you are free to buy these games anywhere resulting in more competition.

not the same case for a closed platform like the xbox. no threat from piracy and no competition means microsoft are free to do what they please

new games hardly ever see massive discounts in places like steam and origin, its the outside competition like amazon and greenmangaming that have the great launch deals - this outside competition will not exist as the only place to buy xb1 games online will be from microsoft
Umm, I currently can buy Xbox game's code on Amazon, Walmart, BestBuy and Gamstop. How is this any different than Steam.

I would argue depends on details of course that Xbox is actually better than Steam since you can sell back your digital games.
 
You don't have to choose Xbone or PS4 if you want used then. It is the same logic I guess. I mean the Wii U is still available. Want PS4 or Xbone games? Well you must accept their ecosystems.

You have data on the bolded? I remember differently but again I don't have data. The whole market (used/new) was pretty small but at least I remember buying many PC games used as a kid.

Bold - I never said that this wasn't the case. My point was this mentality will hurt the industry(but maybe the industry should suffer a major contraction to get rid of all the malinvestment). Liquidity+disposable income in an industry increases demand, unless there is proof that the game industry suffers form more liquidity and disposable income, they are being silly.

As for numbers, it would be incredibly hard to find numbers, the used PC market wasn't a business model, ever, so unless you can find shops that have old records on their sales numbers for used PC games, you wont ever have the numbers to go against your childhood memories. Still even without the numbers, I have no problems saying I am 100% sure the PC game used market wasn't big, ever. The proof is on the business models of companies. There were no stores popping up selling mainly used PC games as its economic model, this is all that is needed to know, to know the demand of the used PC market wasn't there.
 
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...



...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.

Yep pretty much this right here...

Let me add that there is no reason to have 8 fucking 60$ games releasing a month. Do we really need all these multi million dollar games releasing at the same time? The bigger publishers need to consolidate some of these studios. Don't make a racing game with 10 cars, then have another 20 cars as paid DLC.. Make DLC something interesting and keep the qore game fresh.

I'm sure we can go on and on, but damn, some of these suits don't really get it.
 
The only point I'm making is that taken as a whole movies and music can keep producing more revenue than gaming as a whole. The fact that people are arguing otherwise just leads me to believe that they are not interested in rational debate.

More people currently consume movies and music, sure. Movies and music do not have to be on the bleeding edge of technology. Sure, revenues are greater. But that doesn't mean that game publishers aren't profiting from old rereleases, they obviously are, and it certainly doesn't mean they're in such a dramatically different place than other media content producers to justify draconian used game restrictions.

You want to place game publishers on a pedestal and coddle them, allowing them to force anti-consumer tactics down our throats because you feel they aren't making as much profit as they should. I think that's poppycock.
 
So his argument is: Fuck the retailer??

I dislike Gamestop intensely. Retail is a lilting old stack, ready to tumble that has a banal, LCD-flavored excuse of a selection, but gawddayum if we ain't ended up on the same side of the line in the sand from circumstance. I want to not sign away my rights for nothing, they have a business model that hinges on used. So no, for now, do not "fuck the retailer."
 
Umm, I currently can buy Xbox game's code on Amazon, Walmart, BestBuy and Gamstop. How is this any different than Steam.

I would argue depends on details of course that Xbox is actually better than Steam since you can sell back your digital games.

Indeed - not sure why people think of what's being proposed for XBone (without any confirmation) is any different than digital downloads currently. Nobody is saying Microsoft would be the ONLY place you could buy an XBone game digitally. Plus you'd still have physical disc sales by retailers, which could be put on sale.

Why do people assume Steam is "open" with all of this competition while the XBone will be "closed" with no competition? Serious question.
 
Music
  • Multiple recurring revenue streams
  • Royalties - Pandora, Spotify, Radio Play

You're not getting royalties for your music; your getting royalties for the public broadcast and licensing of your music.

Music
  • Concerts and live shows

As an aside; so many artists tour because that is where the money is for an artist.

Unless you are literally at the very top, you are probably getting totally screwed on cd royalites.

Movies
  • Similar to music
  • Most of the time money made back entirely at the box office
  • DVD/Blu Ray
  • Rental
  • Royalties - On Demand, Amazon/Netflix/Hulu
  • TV Syndication
  • No cost to Studio once movie is released

As per music:

a) You're not getting royalties for your movie; your getting royalties for the public broadcast and licensing of your movie.

b) This pops up regularly; movies have multiple revenue streams, cinema, dvd sales, rentals and tv licensing.

Conveniantly forgetting that the vast majority of people who go watch it at the cinema; won't then go and buy it on dvd, then head round to the video store to rent it, then go out of their way to watch it on tv.

You can't quarduple dip on this as a validation for your potential revenue stream, though people try and do.

c) No cost to Studio once game is released

Used Car
  • Inherent Risk
  • Wear and tear
  • Degradation of performance and safety
  • No post-purchase cost for manufacturer
  • Not a luxury item

Equating a car with a video game, really?

a) Inherent Risk of what?
b) Wear and tear can occur on a game/console as well.
c) No post purchase cost for manufacturer for a video game either.
d) A car is a luxury item.


Video Games
  • Stores push used over new - Making massive profit margins

Economics 101 : Why is your ocnusmer base buying the used product over the new product? Obviously your product is either too epxensive; or does not provide an adequate value to cost ratio.


Edit: I'll be back...
 
Don't force online MP and don't allow massive budgets for games no one fucking wants.

Problem solved.

The people against used games, IMO, don't understand basic consumer rights or how markets function. Decades ago, film studios moved out west (creation of Hollywood) to avoid copyright laws because it was too damn expensive to make films on the east coast. Markets open up based on demand so if EA, UBI, Capcom, etc want to nickel and dime people even more and drag their brands even deeper in the mud, power to 'em. I'll buy games from studios that aren't actively trying to take advantage of me.

I will never feel bad for publishers who brought this all on themselves. Some people here sound like 'the tea party' in america right now with their, "pity the billionaire" talking points.

No Sir, not me. Not now, not ever.
 
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.



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

I'm willing to bet that if companies actually made games with characters and stories worth remembering, people will buy it for a lot longer than a month or two. Maybe people stop buying those games after a couple months because they were so generic, nobody even remembers that they existed.
 
The only point I'm making is that taken as a whole movies and music can keep producing more revenue than gaming as a whole. The fact that people are arguing otherwise just leads me to believe that they are not interested in rational debate.

Actually, in 2011 the gaming industry generated more revenue than the movie industry (as a whole). It might have exceeded movies earlier, but the 2011 numbers are current.

Now if you combine the music industry and the movie industry, yeah, the'll exceed gaming, but then again that's kind of two against one.
 
Ah, but you see, used music, cars, movies, TVs, tech, furniture, clothes, books and other stuff aren't the same as games.

lol

The whole "think of thr developers!" arguments is stupid. If devs and publishers can't turn around because used games exist they should probably scale their own costs down a tad. Amirox's post earlier hits the nail on the head.

They don't give a shit about us, why should we think of the developers? Fuck the developers.
 
Don't force online MP and don't allow massive budgets for games no one fucking wants.

Problem solved.
.

one of the primary reasons for online mp bolted on to games is a reaction to the resell/trade in market. it's a tactic to delay trade ins and encourage more buying new games
 
Total Biscuit goes off the rails every now and then, but tries his best to make it sound rational. This feels like one of those times. Have to disagree completely here. Publishers and developers want you to think they're special little snowflakes that need to have consumers hand over their ability to buy and sell used for some strange reason, as if big companies lobbying for this will somehow reciprocate and be your best friends because of it. The gaming industry wants you to think they need special exemptions to survive, as if you having less control is better for you in the end.
 
Economics 101 : Why is your ocnusmer base buying the used product over the new product? Obviously your product is either too epxensive; or does not provide an adequate value to cost ratio.

economics 101: when someone offers an identical product but slightly cheaper which one do people buy? the one that's cheapest, assuming it's available.
 
c) No cost to Studio once game is released

You probably didn't read the whole post but there are inherint costs of video games after it is released.

Servers, customer support, patches, etc.

Equating a car with a video game, really?

a) Inherent Risk of what?
b) Wear and tear can occur on a game/console as well.
c) No post purchase cost for manufacturer for a video game either.
d) A car is a luxury item.

Apparently, he has heard this argument quite a lot.

I would suggest watching the video if you are going to nitpick to this degree.

The bullet points are designed to facilitate conversation for those that don't have the time or the ability to watch the video. But the problem is they don't really show the entire argument.
 
Funny how in responding to some tweets he is doing the same thing that he got upset with people for doing (namely saying that because something does not affect him it should not be taken into account.
 
There's one more thing we have to take in consideration. Microsoft wants us to be able to install these games to our Xbox One's hard drive and not require the disk in there to play it. The benefit is having instant access to several different games without switching discs and less load time. To facilitate this would either require them to build a new system to process and sell the used games directly to make sure only one copy of the purchased game is being played at a time. or to get the market to do that for them giving them a cut of the profits.
If you think about it, it is quite a brilliant strategy. The question is, is losing the ability to lend and borrow games(though that hasn't been directly spoken about yet) and less profit for the secondhand market equivalent to more convenience and faster loading times for our games?
 
one of the primary reasons for online mp bolted on to games is a reaction to the resell/trade in market. it's a tactic to delay trade ins and encourage more buying new games

They may say that but it obviously doesn't work, nor do they probably even truly believe something so dumb. People play Halo, COD, Gears & Uncharted online. Anything else on consoles is laughable if they think they'll make a dent. All they do is burn money maintaining a service that wasn't feasible in the slightest possible way.

Homefront? Remember that joke of a turd? Thank god it focused on online MP and tried to buy it's way into COD territory. How's that working for 'em?

There are hundreds of examples of the above. Shit no one asked for and then the studios act like someone pulled the rug out from under them when the games don't sell gangbusters.
 
economics 101: when someone offers an identical product but slightly cheaper which one do people buy? the one that's cheapest, assuming it's available.

True. Except if we incorporate factors like ethical and moral points of view. Then it gets much more complicated. But PC games are not made in bangladesh in a teared down building that is burning to the ground. They are made under pretty good circumstances in most cases I know.
 
economics 101: when someone offers an identical product but slightly cheaper which one do people buy? the one that's cheapest, assuming it's available.

Assuming that there is as much supply of the cheaper product. That part is kinda fucking important.
 
There's one more thing we have to take in consideration. Microsoft wants us to be able to install these games to our Xbox One's hard drive and not require the disk in there to play it. The benefit is having instant access to several different games without switching discs and less load time. To facilitate this would either require them to build a new system to process and sell the used games directly to make sure only one copy of the purchased game or to get the market to do that for them giving them a cut of the profits.
If you think about it, it is quite a brilliant strategy. The question is, is losing the ability to lend and borrow games(though that hasn't been directly spoken about yet) and less profit for the secondhand market equivalent to more convenience and faster loading times for our games?

Load time shouldn't be any different than the current structure of installing games to the hard drive on the Xbox 360. And you'd have to be awfully damn lazy to value switching between games without getting out of your La-Z-Boy over the ability to sell or trade in your games.
 
Gold_Loot said:
Let me add that there is no reason to have 8 fucking 60$ games releasing a month. Do we really need all these multi million dollar games releasing at the same time? The bigger publishers need to consolidate some of these studios. Don't make a racing game with 10 cars, then have another 20 cars as paid DLC.. Make DLC something interesting and keep the qore game fresh.

Do you actually like games?

I'm sorry, but posts like this really confuse me. You think less choice is actually going to make things better? For anyone?
 
Load time shouldn't be any different than the current structure of installing games to the hard drive on the Xbox 360. And you'd have to be awfully damn lazy to value switching between games without getting out of your La-Z-Boy over the ability to sell or trade in your games.

I've bought a handful of GoD games for this very reason.

Granted, they were all on sale for $10 each, but having instant access for some (versus having to dig out the disc) was a plus.

No way I'm going to spend $60 for a game with GoD digital limitations though.

So yes, lazy can win, at a specific price point.
 
The game industry has had consistent growth since the PS2 era, so I'm not sure what you are basing this off of. We have literally seen a 25% drop off in the game industry(last year), that isn't historic norms. Dont need more studying to see that a contraction is already happening(competition from PC, handheld, iOS/Android and ect).

The US experienced a 21% decline in PHYSICAL in 2012 vs 2011. Not in total. Total spending was only off 9%. Source

And, in fact, the trend in physical looks very similar to that of 2004-2005.

So, literally, we have not seen anything like a 25% drop. Literally. And this transition literally looks quite similar so far to the last transition.
 
So I see this in a particular way, but maybe there's an error in my understanding/logic somewhere in which case I'd be happy to hear someone point it out.

Consumers of games as a whole have a certain amount of money to spend on games. Used games that go through a middleman like Gamestop take some of that money out of the player->publisher->developer line that would otherwise go to those making and funding of games.

What am I missing? Publishers are just going to take the extra dough and run?
 
Do you actually like games?

I'm sorry, but posts like this really confuse me. You think less choice is actually going to make things better? For anyone?
If 6 of those 8 choices are mediocre games or games trying to replicate the success of a game that I already have then yes.
 
The US experienced a 21% decline in PHYSICAL in 2012 vs 2011. Not in total. Total spending was only off 9%. Source

And, in fact, the trend in physical looks very similar to that of 2004-2005.

So, literally, we have not seen anything like a 25% drop. Literally. And this transition looks very similar so far to the last transition.

So you think that physical drop off means more people are buying AAA titles through xbox live? The PC community can live fine off a drop like that, but the consoel crowd, most of their purchases are physical. Which makes even more sense why the console market is doing this.
 
Here's a reason I'd rather have a reasonable DRM free used-game. I can't buy everything at once, and I like having the ability to hunt the game down years later when it's no longer in production.

And people always bring up the idea of Gamestop as if all used games are acquired from there. Never mind eBay, for example. How would MS or Sony make that even work?
 
So you think that physical drop off means more people are buying AAA titles through xbox live? The PC community can live fine of a drop like that, but the consoel crowd, most of their purchases are physical. Which makes even more sense why the console market is doing this.

These boxes are ancient in terms of tech. When the 360 launched fucking "Gold Digger" was the #1 song in the US. A kid graduating high school now was, what, 10 years old when the 360 launched? And what's launched or prospered since? iPads, HDTV, smart phones, youtube, etc etc.

Both of these boxes should have been launched last year. But they waited and are paying for it. MS thought Kinect bought them another year, and at the time it looked like Kinect games would actually extend the cycle. Sony thought the same with the Move. Both miscalculated. Had the next gen boxes released last year, we'd have none of this sky-is-falling conversation.

We'll know soon enough what the market will bear when it comes to the new boxes. However, overall games spending is still quite healthy. I am just reserving all of my outrage and jumping to conclusions until at least after E3 where I can learn the full details of all the plans, know how much the boxes will cost (hopefully) and when they'll release, and what the digital and pricing strategies are for games.
 
Amirox going hypernova on this broken logic. /salute

The whole "think of thr developers!" arguments is stupid. If devs and publishers can't turn around because used games exist they should probably scale their own costs down a tad. Amirox's post earlier hits the nail on the head.

I think and speak positively of a company in this industry when they do me right. I've stumped for their products both passively and actively when they do business with me honestly and bring the thunder with awesome fun games. Corporations pull stunts and entitlement like this? Take one guess at what my message will be.
 
These boxes are ancient in terms of tech. When the 360 launched fucking "Gold Digger" was the #1 song in the US. A kid graduating high school now was, what, 10 years old when the 360 launched? And what's launched or prospered since? iPhones, HDTV, smart phones, youtube, etc etc.

Both of these boxes should have been launched last year. But they waited and are paying for it. MS thought Kinect bought them another year, and at the time it looked like Kinect games would actually extend the cycle. Sony thought the same with the Move. Both miscalculated. Had the next gen boxes released last year, we'd have none of this sky-is-falling conversation.

We'll know soon enough what the market will bear when it comes to the new boxes. However, overall games spending is still quite healthy. I am just reserving all of my outrage and jumping to conclusions until at least after E3 where I can learn the full details of all the plans, know how much the boxes will cost (hopefully) and when they'll release, and what the digital and pricing strategies are for games.

Well, I guess we will see how little/much demand is actually in the used console market. I think your view of it as console age attrition being way overly optimistic. The PC(Free to play, MMO, facebook games) market and Android/iOS/Tablet markets are cutting into the AAA market. Pretending that getting rid of liquidity and disposable income(2nd hand market) in the console market is a good thing for them, is just begging for punishment from consumers.
 
I think the biggest problem is that nobody should trust Microsoft to behave the way Steam does in offering any sort of advantage to the consumer. They are too inconsistent and money driven to warrant any sort of confidence from us anymore.

Wowsers, first post nails it, again.

I'd have no complaints about Xbone's activation codes if I thought MS would allow sales prices to go as low as steam prices. They did no such thing for downloadable games which were heavily discounted on PC this generation.
 
Consumer rights; I know those might seem confusing when you're used to having none.

Consumer Bill of Rights?
The Right to Safety
The Right to Be Informed
The Right to Choose
The Right to Be Heard

Consumer Protection?
Consumer protection is a group of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors; they may also provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves

Either way, I think the term is being misused in this case.

If you do not like what the companies are offering and being upfront about, your right as a consumer is to choose. As long as they are not running afoul of any laws then what do you think you are complaining about?
 
Yeah, fuck the people who make the games we're arguing about.

Especially the ones who think they are entitled to used game sales. These developers think every one of their games is a AAA $60 title (let's not forget the day one DLC and cut game content to be used as future DLC) and then cry and blame GameStop when their shit bombs. Yes, clearly there's no other reason your game bombed, it just has to be those used games!

Jaffe especially, nobody bought Twisted Metal PS3 because it sucked balls compared to the rest of the series. Don't blame used games, blame yourself.
 
Consumer Bill of Rights?


Consumer Protection?


Either way, I think the term is being misused in this case.

If you do not like what the companies are offering and being upfront about, your right as a consumer is to choose. As long as they are not running afoul of any laws then what do you think you are complaining about?

Doesn't matter, if enough consumers view it as a right, the market will treat it like a right, due to the cost of removing that "right". Or they wont and will end up contracting the AAA market(even more).
 
Pretending that getting rid of liquidity and disposable income(2nd hand market) in the console market is a good thing for them, is just begging for punishment from consumers.

Agreed. But they're betting, in a way, that the only real liquidity that exits the market belongs to GameStop's used market anyways. GameStop has come out and said 70% of trade in credit goes to new game purchases. However, price sensitivity on new games purchases is quite low (meaning that people aren't making games purchase decisions with price being a primary factor. IP, quality, word of mouth, genre, etc all are more important purchase drivers than price to the average consumer) and it looks like they want to test out that 70% number to see if it's true.

To be fair, we don't know what policies will be in place. Perhaps nothing changes for the end consumer on the trade in, perhaps GameStop just kicks a couple bucks back to the pubs. Who knows. Perhaps it'll be far worse. We don't know yet.

In the bigger picture, what is really scary is how many young people (who have little disposable income and who do utilize trade ins to fund a majority of purchases) will decrease their frequency of purchase and will turn to other outlets (iOS, League of Legends, etc) for their gaming needs and never look back.

Training the younger generation of gamers to purchase fewer games is the more worrisome thing to me.
 
Zen_Arcade said:
If 6 of those 8 choices are mediocre games or games trying to replicate the success of a game that I already have then yes.

Not everyone has the same taste as you, nor do they necessarily have the same backlog/history of titles played.

Choice is good, there is no downside.

When choice gets whittled down, all that's going to remain are the huge mass-market titles that sell of their license or branding. That's the irony so many people crying out for the "death of the industry" seem to be missing.

If the shit hits the fan, the first thing to go will be the niche titles, genres that only gamers like. The casual and mass-market dinosaurs will lumber on for years purely on the strength of their branding.

Casual NFL and soccer fans will pick up Madden and Fifa year-in, year-out, regardless of whether they can sell it used or not. These franchises are as near bulletproof as anything in the media.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck about either. But guess what, my taste doesn't really count for much because there are millions of people out there who are into their sport of choice, more than gaming.
 
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?

Because the people who created the art are more morally justified to that money and support than you or GameStop will ever be.

I know the law and the first-sale doctrine; there is a difference between what is most right and what is lawful.
 
Top Bottom