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

Total Biscuit arguing for no used game sales

You and Gamestop may be happy with the status quo, but that doesn't give you any right, moral or legal, to dictate terms to the third participant,
17 USC § 109
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

without whom the entire business would not exist.
That sounds like some rad supply-side economics you got going there.

The business only exists because the public, through the state, created laws to encourage innovations in arts and sciences to flow into the public domain by striking a bargain: a period of exclusivity protected by the state after which it becomes public property. Seeking to undermine the law (of which the First Sale doctrine in an important component) which created the legal fiction called 'intellectual property' is an attempt to partially reneg on this bargain and keep all benefits for itself.

'Intellectual property' does not exist to be a guaranteed profit center for creators.
 
If you are making a movie you get a chance to recoup, the cost of making it a lot of places.

you get to show it in a movie theater. a premier. a social extravaganza.

then you can put it on DVD/BR and sell it as physical media.

then you can put it on the streaming services and get revenue every month from netflix or itunes.

then you can sell it to allow tv stations to broadcast it on TV.



Basically you got a lot more revenue streams. So used DVDs/BRs dont hurt them anywhere near as much. succesful movies make bank in the movie theater. and then they have all these other choices afterwards.



Games don't get this. They have DLC, but DLC actually benefits from used games sale. the profit gains for DLC like Oblivion horse Armor is massive.

I buy Oblivion, i play it, like it, and buy horse armor. horse armor goes into my xbox live account. Then I get sick of oblivion and I sell the game to gamestop.


gamestop sells the game for 30 bucks to some random dude. those 30 bucks don't go to the developer at all. they all in entirety goes to gamestop who advertised the game right next to a new copy.
random dude plays my Oblivion and likes it. he pays for and downloads horse armor DLC. at least Bethesda made an extra 5 dollars of this dude.
but they still lost 50 bucks, the random dude would have spend had he bought the new copy.



-----


When I go into my european equivalent of best buy/wall mart, I dont see used Movies and Musics. I only see new copies.


Gamestop/Game are extremely greedy and powerful like all companies. if you are for games why would you give these guys ALL the margins for a game they didnt even made or financed? They did nothing besides having the game on the counter!
 
I think people are missing that this isn't just gamestop. This is lending games between friends, this is getting a game that is now out of print via Amazon, this is being broke and trading in your old games to get new ones, this is fucking owning a goddam disc.

Microsoft's proposed system kills all of that in the name of getting sales from used games. Let's take Gamestop out the picture for now because honestly they can work something out that doesn't fuck with us with Gamestop. But what if WB prevented you from giving away you Batman Begins Bluray or selling it via Amazon/Ebay. Would you be okay with it because Nolan's gotta eat yo....or is it somehow not ok because it made a ton of money and WB is just being greedy. In that second case, why is it then okay for them to do the same with Arkham City trade ins or lends? Because teh gaeming isn't as profitable as movies? why the fuck should that make a difference? You bought it and now instead of it taking up space youi want to give it to someone else who will actually enjoy it.

Basically why should they get any money from what I do with something I bought? That is fucked.

I don't give a shit about Gamespot. I buy new the few times I do go there and the only used games I buy are ones out of print or ridiculously overprices thanks to scalpers or rarity. If you want to get profits off of retailers reselling your games...then go to them and work that shit out. But no they rather create a system that still benefits them while punishing the customers...that is fucking backwards.

I get the ida. Gamestop selling used shit for 55 a week after release does suck and does probably take away sales...but take that up with them. Do shit on our second hand rights...no other industry does this and I don't care if they get more money or outside stuff...fuck that. The Gaming Industry doesn't deserve special treatment in this case...sorry.
 
Again you are literally arguing with how the market is moving. Also, if you think these publicly traded companies dont want 100+ million dollar budget games, well whatever... So at this point I'm going to treat you like Open Source, someone who just isn't worth the effort.

Market is moving? Having successful Indie developers doesn't mean all of a sudden this industry is going to be dominated by indie developers. Especially with the current policies implemented by Microsoft where Indie developers are not able to self publish.

Old games only? You mean games like this, this, this, this, this, this, or many many others?

Exceptions to the rule. You also forgot the Witcher. Please, tell me what I don't know.
 
So are you saying COD is going to do bad? Sorry but you are bringing up a red herring. there is no logical extension to what I said, and what you brought up. The conclusion that because the COD doesnt meet a random number of internet peoples expectations in no way precludes the idea that markets have to meet those random internet peopels demand, to sell there game. In fact, all evidence points to graphics not being the main cause for sales(all you would have to do is look at which console sells the most every generation).

COD will sell because its COD. A game that doesn't have the production values to get people excited wont sell though. We see it all the time. It doesn't have to rip off COD at all, if its not grabbing people with its visuals its written off. Meh, terrible, looks alright, looks like a boring fps game. That's how its always been and will most likely continue to be.
 
Considering how long they've had their sales guidelines in place, "attempting" really doesn't do the practice justice. They've been profiteering mightily for years at the expense of consumers and producer's alike.

The basic John Smith of buy low, sell high pretty much guarantees who's getting the shitty end of the stick.

If Gamestop isn't providing sufficient value to its consumers and its suppliers how, exactly, is it able to stay in business?

Mutually beneficial only if those transactions existed in a vacuum. Unfortunately they don't and conveniently ignore the most crucial player in the scene, the creator/supplier of original product.

The entire crux of the First Sale doctrine is that after the initial sale the creator/supplier is no longer in the picture. They made their money in the first sale.

You and Gamestop may be happy with the status quo, but that doesn't give you any right, moral or legal, to dictate terms to the third participant, without whom the entire business would not exist.

Publishers may not be happy with the status quo, but that doesn't give them the right, moral or legal, to interfere with a transaction that does on involve them and is protected by federal law.

I never implied that I am happy with the status quo. I simply believe in a free markets ability to regulate itself. I do not see Gamestop as some sort of unstoppable juggernaut rampaging through the industry. Gamestop posted a net loss of $269.7 million in 2012, a net profit of $339.9 million in 2011. Compare that to Activision Blizzards $1.14 billion 2012.

I also do not think that I have an obligation as a consumer to reconfigure my habits to help the fastest growing media industry grow even faster.

Take it as you will, but everything in that quote I believe to be incorrect and I thought I'd simply spare you my verbosity (for once).

Ok
 
I like a lot of his arguments. I disagree with most of them.

However I absolutely agree with him where people are crazy on hating on online passes and, to a lesser extent, DLC.


Edit: OK, agenda revealed at 18:15. He wants reduced PC game prices, lol. Fair enough.
 
If companies could choose not to spend 100 + million and create the experiences we currently have I'm sure they would have done that.

Software projects on average are about as mismanaged, falsely planned and inefficiently executed as you will find on this planet. This is a tiny cog in a giant doomsday device which the games industry (especially publishers) is constructing for decades now, which makes it so difficult to feel the slightest empathy for them in these debates.
 
That is a good question. What are you talking about? I might be wrong, but you seem to think AAA games aren't the dominant reason people own consoles and that large budgets aren't required. If you think that, you are wrong. If companies could choose not to spend 100 + million and create the experiences we currently have I'm sure they would have done that.

I think the term AAA is subjective as shit now days. Should be changed to Big Budget Game (BBG) because that's really all anyone is referring to.

The industry's problem is they think they're BBG is of AAA quality and the market clearly disagrees. That's how publishers have gotten themselves into the situation they're in now.
 
Software projects on average are about as mismanaged, falsely planned and inefficiently executed as you will find on this planet. This is a tiny cog in a giant doomsday device which the games industry (especially publishers) is constructing for decades now, which makes it so difficult to feel the slightest empathy for them in these debates.

What makes you believe this? Software is not easy to manage or make. Generally, software products are some of the most complex pieces of engineering that come out these days. I don't see any reason to believe that just because a company makes software it's managers are incompetent.
 
Jake Tower said:
The sounds like some rad supply-side economics you got going there.

I wasn't trying to make that deep a point!
Simply put: If noone produced games, there'd be nothing to sell and no audience to serve.
So keeping these guys happy is kind of important if you want to maintain the business long-term.

It'd be nice if all three groups (producers, sellers and customers) could all get along, but the way I see it, the middlemen have realized that their glory days are coming to the end with the inevitable rise of digital distribution, and have decided to cash out by grabbing as much of the pie as they can, while they still can.

Its a dick move, but that's capitalism for you. :(
 
Software projects on average are about as mismanaged, falsely planned and inefficiently executed as you will find on this planet. This is a tiny cog in a giant doomsday device which the games industry (especially publishers) is constructing for decades now, which makes it so difficult to feel the slightest empathy for them in these debates.

this is to vague. more solid proof. mismanaged is the entirety of life across all economies. why is gaming suddenly the foundation of all things incompetence?


look at world war z. the latest blockbuster 200 million dollars zombie diaster! or the new epic with keanu reeves that has gone atrociously over budget. this happens all time time across many different industries!
 
Gamestop/Game are extremely greedy and powerful like all companies. if you are for games why would you give these guys ALL the margins for a game they didnt even made or financed? They did nothing besides having the game on the counter!

You realize that Microsoft's proposed system requires people to take their games to Gamestop or some other authorized dealer so than can have it registered as being traded in to take their cut. The only thing this kills is lending, giving, or selling a game on an individual basis. It's no loss to Gamestop either because they can just pass on whatever fee they have to pay Microsoft on to the consumer, with the added benefit of all other competition being eliminated.
 
No, they do not have any moral rights to the money!

If I made a table or something I would not have a moral right to more money when someone sells it again, game publishers are no different.

It's more like if you made 2 million tables, and you need to sell them all at $60 to make a profit. But Uncle Larry who was your first customer takes the design, replicates it with his replicator and sells it on his own for a lower price, in your OWN furniture store.
 
If you are making a movie you get a chance to recoup, the cost of making it a lot of places.

you get to show it in a movie theater. a premier. a social extravaganza.

then you can put it on DVD/BR and sell it as physical media.

then you can put it on the streaming services and get revenue every month from netflix or itunes.

then you can sell it to allow tv stations to broadcast it on TV.



Basically you got a lot more revenue streams. So used DVDs/BRs dont hurt them anywhere near as much. succesful movies make bank in the movie theater. and then they have all these other choices afterwards.



Games don't get this. They have DLC, but DLC actually benefits from used games sale. the profit gains for DLC like Oblivion horse Armor is massive.

I buy Oblivion, i play it, like it, and buy horse armor. horse armor goes into my xbox live account. Then I get sick of oblivion and I sell the game to gamestop.


gamestop sells the game for 30 bucks to some random dude. those 30 bucks don't go to the developer at all. they all in entirety goes to gamestop who advertised the game right next to a new copy.
random dude plays my Oblivion and likes it. he pays for and downloads horse armor DLC. at least Bethesda made an extra 5 dollars of this dude.
but they still lost 50 bucks, the random dude would have spend had he bought the new copy.



-----


When I go into my european equivalent of best buy/wall mart, I dont see used Movies and Musics. I only see new copies.


Gamestop/Game are extremely greedy and powerful like all companies. if you are for games why would you give these guys ALL the margins for a game they didnt even made or financed? They did nothing besides having the game on the counter!

I don't know why people seem to think that game publishers need to make as much profit as motion picture companies, even if it comes at the cost of consumer freedom. Not all industries are as profitable as others. Should Activision make Apple profits? Should Microsoft's Xbox division be as profitable as its PC software division?

Why are we so concerned with how many revenue streams a company has? Many game publishers have been doing quite well lately. Activision made 1.1 billion dollars in profit in 2012. This does not indicate a failing market or one that needs to pursue more profits at the cost of consumer confidence.
 
I get the ida. Gamestop selling used shit for 55 a week after release does suck and does probably take away sales...but take that up with them. Do shit on our second hand rights...no other industry does this and I don't care if they get more money or outside stuff...fuck that. The Gaming Industry doesn't deserve special treatment in this case...sorry.


It's funny you bring up special treatment. Because most of the supposedly better managed gaming ecosystems out there brought up by people like iOS and Steam do not allow selling purchased software. In fact it's pretty obvious that that is the direction everything is heading. But console gamers feel they have some "special right" to demand the industry continues on as it has in the past.
 
Whenever publishers have some sort of power, they use it to try and make more money. DLC, passports, online only.

There's a huge difference between the games industry and Valve. The leaders of Valve seem to care about gaming, and even the customers to some degree. Yes, Steam is rigid, and I don't really like it, but even so, if anyone thinks that model will follow to the console is kidding themselves. Valve has catched flack for their model, even, but they established it so early that they have all the power in the PC space.

Most gaming corporations, especially the ones that control the console world, are business people. Do people think there will be sales if they can fully control and manipulate the games-access on an hourly basis, and when there are no retailers involved that have to compete with each other? Used games will most likely be 40-50$, new games will go up to 70-80$, there will be A LOT more DLC, passports, subscriptions, rules, etc.

What did Blizzard do with Diablo 3? They added an auction house, with real money involved. What did EA do with SimCity? They forced online only onto a game that did not need it, which seemingly lead to a lot of questionable designs. They offered additional *ad* content, from products. For free, yes, but I doubt it would have been free if SimCity hadn't had such a messy launch. This is nothing compared to what they would do if they fully controlled the console space.
 
I wasn't trying to make that deep a point!
Simply put: If noone produced games, there'd be nothing to sell and no audience to serve.
So keeping these guys happy is kind of important if you want to maintain the business long-term.

It'd be nice if all three groups (producers, sellers and customers) could all get along, but the way I see it, the middlemen have realized that their glory days are coming to the end with the inevitable rise of digital distribution, and have decided to cash out by grabbing as much of the pie as they can, while they still can.

Its a dick move, but that's capitalism for you. :(

You're active on this topic, so I assume you've already answered this before, but why do publishers continue to make deals with the one outlet that they claim is cannibalizing their business?
 
You probably didn't read the whole post but there are inherint costs of video games after it is released.

No, I admit a quick skim read, before real life caught up.

Servers, customer support, patches, etc.

Really?

a) For whom? Don't put useless multiplayer in your games; or faciliate for those costs.
b) For what? Make a product that works correctly in the first place.
c) For what? Make a product that works correctly in the first place.

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.

Yeah, fair call. I will watch the video; and I'll take your comments on board.
 
I don't know why people seem to think that game publishers need to make as much profit as motion picture companies, even if it comes at the cost of consumer freedom. Not all industries are as profitable as others. Should Activision make Apple profits? Should Microsoft's Xbox division be as profitable as its PC software division?

Yes, because it's entertainment. And it makes dreams come true.
 
GQman2121 said:
You're active on this topic, so I assume you've already answered this before, but why do publishers continue to make deals with the one outlet that they claim is cannibalizing their business?

Because brick and mortar retail is still the dominant distribution mechanism for games. Digital sales are getting there, but the transition to all-online isn't there yet, especially given the infrastructure requirements for shifting the gigabytes of data required by many titles.

Game/Gamestop are the leading specialist retailers for games/gaming hardware, and specialization is important for maximizing promotion at point-of-sale. In simple terms, it gives them the storefront displays they can't get from supermarkets and other major multiples.

Large numbers of outlets/dedicated square-footage means they have a lot of buying power; allowing them to negotiate for the most favourable prices. Remember this is not just on the basis of quantity, but range of products ordered - supermarkets generally take a smaller product range even though they are equally large volume business. This allows them a competitive advantage over independents and smaller chains.

Last post for me before bed.
 
You're active on this topic, so I assume you've already answered this before, but why do publishers continue to make deals with the one outlet that they claim is cannibalizing their business?

Simple.

That one outlet has incredibly strong relationships with the game buying customer base. People like shopping at GameStop and they own an incredibly high market share, particularly on day 1, the most important day for any game.
 
If this used games fiasco goes down as badly as people are predicting ie used games costing as much as new and no aggressive sales/pricing like Steam. I predict there will be a lot more pirating on Xbox One.
 
It's funny you bring up special treatment. Because most of the supposedly better managed gaming ecosystems out there brought up by people like iOS and Steam do not allow selling purchased software. In fact it's pretty obvious that that is the direction everything is heading. But console gamers feel they have some "special right" to demand the industry continues on as it has in the past.

I swear I am going to snap if someone brings up Steam and IOS again.

1. The games on those platforms are cheap or have crazy sales. We pay 60 dollars for our new games. Cut the prices or have tons of sales, then maybe we will be more willing to give up. Imagine if on Stea, every game was 60 bucks and the sales were mediocre at best, still think it's the best thing ever?

2. I am talking about PHYSICAL MEDIA. That makes a huge difference here. The fact that I am being sold something physical that I can't resell is stupid. No other industry does this. You can point to ebooks, mp3 and such but in each of those mediums you can still resell or lend out the physical aspect. Until discs are no more and our internet is ready, we should still have the ability.

no shit it is on it's way and the future will call for DD...but until then fuck off. I get that you want to get ready for change but you can't or rather shouldn't force it.

also don't change my name...it's not cute.
 
Hence why I said there is no law to enforce this:p
Once the game is sold initially it is the consumer and buyer's to do with what they want.

As you said if they want to get a cut from gamestop they'd have to give back equally, so that isn't going to happen either.
They want to force this on the consumer since they won't have to negotiate or give anything in return there.
They'll just step on our rights and hope no proper authorities take note, maybe grease some palms to avoid that.

edit: faceless has already posted my exact feelings on this whole mess in a far more coherent and concisee way than I ever could, so much that it makes the argument I was having with you moot.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was adding to your point that just because there isn't a law to force something to happen doesn't mean the two sides can't come to agreement. Only they won't and we get fucked in the end.

We're on the same page here.
 
This is a more than adequate counter to TB's video:
http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-when-the-starscreams-kill-used-games-254633.phtml

And here's another, from the PA report thread, because this post is a completely relevant retort to TB's point of view no matter how many times it's quoted:
Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

And a repost of my thoughts on him:
TotalBiscuit's demeanor and treatment of everyone who disagrees with him is a complete joke. For that matter, his stance on the twitter movement went from 'It's pointless, you should give up just because' to 'I don't want to see my poor starving developer friends not get paid from second sales of games they already sold'. Further, he states right at the beginning of his video that no one should expect him to care about used games 'because PC' - so as it doesn't affect him, of course he's all for it. It's pretty obvious from all angles that he cares about nothing but his own niche of gaming, PCs, and what started as a snarky dismissal of a movement he doesn't care about erupted into a scrambled defense of his ego when he got flooded by #PS4NoDRM tweeters.

That's everything I've got on this topic. None of the counterpoints are new, but then TB isn't saying anything new either.
 
I find it humorous that some of you don't go for this because you don't think Microsoft will offer deep discounts/sales for you to save money on. You like money? So do the developers.
 
I find it humorous that some of you don't go for this because you don't think Microsoft will offer deep discounts/sales for you to save money on. You like money? So do the developers.

I find it humorous that people act like publishers are their friends so them fucking over customers for said money is ok.

call me biased but I'm not apart of the game creation process so I honestly don't care about how tough they supposedly have it when it's my shit getting pushed in. I will never understand why people defend this shit with "well it's for the better...for the industry" as if they directly get funds from it...if you do then cool i get you. I get why jaffe wants Gamestop to piss off. A gamer? Naw...why would you willing give up rights and be happy about it?

I'd be okay with a happy medium but the proposed system is tilted faaar too much in their favor for that.

and once again...for physical media, why should they get benefits that other more established businesses don't get? CDs are dying out for music too but the music industry adapted.

fucking adapt.
 
I like TB but as time has went on it feels like he is getting disconnected to the rest of the gaming community. Especially when it comes to the console market. He doesn't view the world at all angles,

also this belief that MS and Sony (PSN plus is close but not there) will automatically create a more Valve like business because of all of this anti used games is a joke.
 
Nothing is forcing developers/publishers to spend as much as they do currently in development and marketing. They could easily step down a few notches if they want to be more profitable.

They should not be able to stomp out consumer's rights because they have a bad business model. Find places to cut instead of putting your money-grubbing hands in new places.
 
and once again...for physical media, why should they get benefits that other more established businesses don't get? CDs are dying out for music too but the music industry adapted.

fucking adapt.

Uhhh you mean the music industry that went to a digital model which prevents used sales? Adapt like that?
 
The issue i have with TB's video is console games 98% of the time are usually charged at $60 each (or in my case $90). Sorry but movies, music and books no where near cost that much. The lost multiple revue streams a game doesn't have compared to movies is made up for in its price, plus you have DLC and online passes. I don't have a issue online passes, i thought it was good compromise.

If 'AAA' games cost 10bucks each he would have a argument and i would 100% agree with it.

PC games are also between $50 and $60 when they come out most of the time and you can't resell those. Console gamers will just have to live like PC gamers from now and and deal with it.
 
Uhhh you mean the music industry that went to a digital model which prevents used sales? Adapt like that?

Yeah..the same one that still allows you to sell and use you PHYSICAL MEDIA as you wish.


and as for their digital model...you know what they did to combat piracy (not used btw)? They made shit cheaper. If Microsoft does this, be it via sales or whatever, then I will be happy and fine.

but they won't...because they won't have too.] with their system. The Music Industry kept physical media around and had to give consumers a reason to buy digitally or give them a reason to buy retail. They adapted to keep both methods profitable.



Shit even Apple got rid of their DRM
 
The one that went to a cheap ala carte model and eventually removed all DRM.


So you're ok with not allowing used sales then. You just don't like the DRM?

Sort of the same as me. I can accept dropping prices in exchange for no more used sales. As long as the prices really do drop a ton, and we don't have all the other DRM garbage.
 
So you're ok with not allowing used sales then. You just don't like the DRM?

No, I'm not ok with that. Copyright law needs to be updated to permit resell of digital copies. There is a gap in the law and current technology.

My point about the DRM and ala carte is the music industry adopting to market forces and adjusting the user experience to provide value. Something the games industry is going in the opposite direction on.
 
There are so many bad arguments it's hard to see which ones should be addressed.

The bottom line, however, is what Sterling already pointed out. Console manufacturers are free to crush the value of used games, and they are free to still charge $60($70?) for all new games, and they are free to think that this will be a successful strategy for their bottom line. They are also free to fail.

It is completely OUR choice whether the console manufacturer/publisher gets our dollar. A propaganda campaign is taking place designed to make consumers feel guilt for not mailing the developer $20 after selling a game on ebay for $40. It's to make consumers feel like we shouldn't have had used games all along because they were always intrinsically bad for the industry. Do these personalities really think that we won't notice that their crusading for this cause started immediately after the Xbone PR mess? Did this Xbone PR mess suddenly lift a magical veil from their eyes, "Ah yes! How could I not see this great evil in the industry before??" How do they expect people like ME to not think of them as talking mouthpieces doing damage control for a multi-billion dollar company.

The industry has survived for decades under this model of used game sales. In fact there are naturally going to be less used games sales than ever before with the advent of a digital focus for consoles. By the next console generation I doubt there will even be discs available, so why don't they just let it fade out naturally? It certainly seems like a better strategy then trying to guilt your customer base into submission.
 
Two interesting points from the amount of time I was able to withstand listening to it:

He talks about working in retail and how heavily used game sales are pushed but then fails to even make a cursory reflection on why that is. Did you ever ask yourself why retailers are forced to focus so much on that market, "biscuit"?

He mocks the used car comparison while completely missing the point. Pointing out all the physical and utlitarian differences as prima facie it's false equivalency. The lifetime and use of the object is of no importance here. The issue is that people are able to do with the property they own what they wish.

Weak.
 
I can't believe the used game thing has garnered so many defenders here. I am actually really happy MS is doing this. This is basically just what I needed to cut ties from this whole wretched monstrosity. I personally won't give another inch of my rights so they will have to sell to those of you that don't mind. :)

I can't wait to see where it takes these publishers. I have a feeling it's gonna be an entertaining ride.
 
He talks about working in retail and how heavily used game sales are pushed but then fails to even make a cursory reflection on why that is. Did you ever ask yourself why retailers are forced to focus so much on that market, "biscuit"?

I dunno. How about you enlighten us about why these retailers have their employees push for a used game instead of a new one other than the obvious profit margin differential.
 
You want to elaborate on this? It's not like devs don't make money on Steam sales. Many devs made more on a huge promoted discount than they ever did at release.

Economics isn't as simple as highest prices = the most money. But a lot of people, Microsoft included going by 8 years of digital sales, are so afraid of "devaluing IPs" or other excuses that they don't move prices much at all. They refuse to let the market find the appropriate price, and are happier to let a game underperform. It's stupid.

Just afraid of stepping on retailers toes. Once Gamestop is out of the way then I don't see too many barriers to following the way Steam does it.
 
Yeah..the same one that still allows you to sell and use you PHYSICAL MEDIA as you wish.


and as for their digital model...you know what they did to combat piracy (not used btw)? They made shit cheaper. If Microsoft does this, be it via sales or whatever, then I will be happy and fine.

but they won't...because they won't have too.] with their system. The Music Industry kept physical media around and had to give consumers a reason to buy digitally or give them a reason to buy retail. They adapted to keep both methods profitable.



Shit even Apple got rid of their DRM

In all likelihood what they're selling is a code with a disc included that has a basic install to save you the bandwidth. Like Steamworks PC games.

I'm primarily a PC gamer and the transition o digital has been great for me.

I have 3 steam installs, and I freely download anything I want to any of my boxes. My saves are there waiting for me. I have all my friends on one list. I get great sales from steam, amazon and other retailers.

PC has more piracy than any other platform. Yet PC gaming is getting solid growth and it's tough to find PC gamers who bitch about pricing or steam Drm anymore.

And look at big picture mode. The cleanest console interface out there. Needs some work, but I'll take it over the other guys.

If MS and Sony are going to a steam model most will scream bloody murder like PC gamers did when steam launched, but in 5 years? You may be wondering why the switch was held off as long as it was.
 
Top Bottom