Bobby Kotick Is Ok with Used Game Sales
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wish more people would point out the major difference between being a publisher and being a developer.Femaref said:
As a guy who actually does work for a publisher it is worlds apart.
It's as if he watched that Seinfeld episode where George realizes every single instinct he's ever has is wrong. Someone made ol' Bobby watch it and now instead of saying what he wants to say, he just says the opposite.
Games are just business? Nah, we're concerned for the people who play. Nickel and diming gamers for our services? Nah, that's probably not practical. Charging more money for the same service? Nah, we would at least put your money to work for an even better experience.
Opposites.
Games are just business? Nah, we're concerned for the people who play. Nickel and diming gamers for our services? Nah, that's probably not practical. Charging more money for the same service? Nah, we would at least put your money to work for an even better experience.
Opposites.
I don't even have any kind of disposition to Kotick so, whatever. Good for him man.
Also, I adore how every article based around him uses the same picture of him with the Guitar Hero controller. Subtle trolling at its best
Also, I adore how every article based around him uses the same picture of him with the Guitar Hero controller. Subtle trolling at its best
So, he'll charge more for DLC like the MW2 map packs costing $5 more then usual is what he's saying? Also, it's very stupid of him to say that they deserve the money from the Xbox live price increase so they can 'make better game' when we all know they'll just keep making Call Of Duty over and over again no matter what. And there are always the people who will never buy DLC as well
Because people are normally a lot more likely to buy a used game then a used DVD from what I've seen. DVDs don't have the giant companies that sell them used like GameStop and the companies like it. Plus, games are much more expensive and therefore people are a lot more likely to buy them used and save $5 rather then buying it new when you get virtually the same thing.AvsJoe said:
On the one hand, he's essentially managed to spin the fact that EA charges people who buy used copies for DLC while they charge everyone for DLC into a positive.
On the other hand, this is the guy that was bragging that he would price MW2 higher and people would still buy it, so the fact that he's at least trying to spin it into a positive means there might be hope for him yet.
On the other hand, this is the guy that was bragging that he would price MW2 higher and people would still buy it, so the fact that he's at least trying to spin it into a positive means there might be hope for him yet.
I think the problem with resale is the dual nature of the law, the law was written to allow private people sell their old stuff at will, if someone wants to put a stack of books out for sale during a flea-market they should be able too, if someone wants to do the same with their old games, they should be able too. And too a lesser extent you've got used book stores, selling products that publishers have stopped printing.
The problem comes into it when you have an entire industry pop up, like with Gamestop, that does it's level best to cut out the publisher; Selling the product once, then buying it back, selling it again, then buying it back again... So personally I'd be happy if stores like Gamestop were forced by law to kick back a chunk of used-game sales, within say the first 6 months after the release of a game, to the publisher.
The problem comes into it when you have an entire industry pop up, like with Gamestop, that does it's level best to cut out the publisher; Selling the product once, then buying it back, selling it again, then buying it back again... So personally I'd be happy if stores like Gamestop were forced by law to kick back a chunk of used-game sales, within say the first 6 months after the release of a game, to the publisher.
Except that's not really true, is it?kibayasu said:
EA's been restricting content of late, more and more it's coming closer to "buy the game new or you have to pay to get the full package."
Whereas EA's saying "we won't punish you for buying used."
Do I agree with the 15 dollar map pack model? No, but it's a sight more honest than the "buy new or we'll punish you!" model.
I want to make a salient point about the difference between games and books, dvd's that the author of this article didn't seem to grasp.
Games (software in general) are licensed for use.
It'd be a perfectly valid business model (as in, yes this business model already exists, but not specifically as applied to the broader game market) for a company to distribute software for free (download), but to sell a non transferable license to use.
Some games (all subscription based games) technically are supposed to operate this way, although they don't tend to really enforce it across the board (For the longest time, swapping characters on WoW was against the license, but they didn't bother to enforce it, and then they made license transfers part of their business model - smart move imho)
Games (software in general) are licensed for use.
It'd be a perfectly valid business model (as in, yes this business model already exists, but not specifically as applied to the broader game market) for a company to distribute software for free (download), but to sell a non transferable license to use.
Some games (all subscription based games) technically are supposed to operate this way, although they don't tend to really enforce it across the board (For the longest time, swapping characters on WoW was against the license, but they didn't bother to enforce it, and then they made license transfers part of their business model - smart move imho)
I am utterly covinced that, ensconced deeply within Bobby Kotick's cranium, lies a parasitic space worm who is helpfully trying to make things better for gamers by squeezing the greedy, manipulative part of Kotick's brain to death. Unfortunately, the space worm gets tired easily, and so much of Kotick's brain is greedy and manipulative... hence the brief moments of almost-humanity before the poor worm needs to take a break and the "old" Bobby Kotick returns.Littaly said:
These publishers have a master plan. What they are really doing, I think, is trying to make game collection as unattractive as possible. The era of game collection is on its way out. In 10 years, so many games will no longer work. Codes won't work. Validation servers will be gone. Gamers will have wonderful collections of drink coasters. What WILL work, however, are the publishers thriving "Retro Games" services, and "Retro Redux" products. Wii's Virtual Console and Good Old Games' service has really shown the potential for success in this area. THis is what publishers are working towards. For too long, they've let us consumers think we own something solid. They want to remind us that we only own a ticket to ride, and its validity is for as long as they say it is. I have a big collectiono of prior generation games, but I will have to sell everything from this generation simply because it won't work properly or at all in 10 years.
I'm not sure how "salient" your point was but while I understand your intent, don't forget that books, games, movies and music are no different interms of consumer rights. They are all just mediums for content delivery, and consumers own nothing more than the right to use that content. That's why millions of books are destroyed every year because they weren't sold. They too have entered the digital realm and they have the same restrictions as games are getting now. All media is licensed for use.Jake Martinez said:
The problem consumers are facing is that the "old" (that consumers own something solid, and that IS the item bought) is clashig with the (not so) new (that consumers own only a right to use, and the item is a means to an end). Publishers of this material can't seem to decide which is the truth. When it suits them, they apply each model to their own gain and consumers' loss. Why can't we transfer our licences across formats (my paper books to digital files, etc)? Why is just OWNING a copy a crime when it is the VIEWING that is what we pay for? You are right in saying that it should be "free to download" and "pay to use", but publishers need to make that clear directly and from the outset. They need to then keep their word and have consistency on that.
No, the movie industy make most of it's money from DVD sales, but why would you sell DVD, the whole point of buying the DVD is to keep it, or else you can go to movie theater which is way cheaper. On the other hand, single player game often get trade in as soon as they are finshed that is the problem. That is way most selling games have multiplayer, and more and more game support multiplayer even their focus is single player, for example Uncharted.Dioxide20 said:
Also used DVD is often very cheap compare to used games which is $55 dollar when new games are $60, that is because most people don't buy used movie as much as used games.
I think it is because many people buy DVD movie as a collectible, so less used copy are traded. Just like you don't see collectors edition of games trading around. Due to the fact you can see the movie in movie theater.