On Used Games, etc.
- Thread starter ralfy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People still argue about this? It's like politics; both sides are championed by big corporations who just want to suck as much money out of you as they can.
Nobody had a problem with used games until Gamestop started gouging the market and selling used games to people searching for new copies.
On the other hand the publishers exaggerate the effect it has on their bottom line so they have an excuse to run online passes, day 1 dlc, and other stupid schemes.
No matter who wins that war, the people who will get crapped on the most are the legitimate consumers: and used consumers are legitimate consumers as they do sometimes buy/pre-order new games and get them as gifts.
It's almost enough to make me want to pirate.
Nobody had a problem with used games until Gamestop started gouging the market and selling used games to people searching for new copies.
On the other hand the publishers exaggerate the effect it has on their bottom line so they have an excuse to run online passes, day 1 dlc, and other stupid schemes.
No matter who wins that war, the people who will get crapped on the most are the legitimate consumers: and used consumers are legitimate consumers as they do sometimes buy/pre-order new games and get them as gifts.
It's almost enough to make me want to pirate.
The video lecturer argues that used game sales has not had an impact on video game sales. See the video for details.Draech said:
That argument is fallacious, similar to a slippery slope. If anything I buy won't work or be available at some point, then I shouldn't get it? That makes zero sense to me.
The analogy to a phone service or electricity is completely wrong unless you're implying that I can get another company to make a game run once more after the original company closes. Given that, the reference to a double standard is absurd.
Ultimately, the only thing you got right is precisely what you kept insisting is a "non-point": that these games will only work as long as the publisher provides the services that will allow for such. Ironically, that's the same argument of the video speaker.
The difference is that you accept the fact that the game you buy isn't really yours, and that it is ultimately the decision of the publisher whether or not you can keep playing it. Put simply, you simply purchased the right to play the game for a limited amount of time. That time is determined by the publisher, not by you.
But if that's so then your argument works against you! That's your point? Try non-point.
I'm not sure that's true. FIFA 12 has only just dropped below £30 in most high-street retailers (Blockbuster, Game, HMV) and that's with FIFA 13 due in a week or so, while Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect went down to <£30 after only a couple of months. It's about popularity more than anything, big sellers like FIFA, Skyrim and Call of Duty will hold a £35-£40 price tag 8-10 months down the line but if interest drops off quickly so will the price.Silverbane7 said:
Missing facts, indeed! Where is the evidence showing that used game sales has affected the sale of new games? All I've seen is this from Richard Browne:Draech said:
"The Real Cost of Used Games"
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-12-the-real-cost-of-used-games
Where are the numbers? Where is the proof that the "variety of games" is shrinking? The destruction of mid-tier publishers? Like L1, I am not convinced that this is true.
Again, where are the numbers? Is it high enough such that the variety of titles has decreased, that sales have been undermined, and that publishers have closed? Where's the proof?
Where are the numbers and other data?
As I told you earlier, that makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, what makes matters worse is that the continued availability of that service is assumed because, ironically, one good reason why used games should not be sold is because, according to Browne, they are not supposed to be "disposable entertainment." But how can you continue enjoying them if the service needed to play them no longer operates?
It is a slippery slope argument. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
The rest of your paragraph doesn't help you any way because, as I explained earlier, it assumes that another company will provide services that will allow you to continue playing the game. This point is ridiculous and not worth pursuing.
No, it is NOT a double standard because when you bought a game in the past you owned it, could play it, and could sell it. You didn't have to activate it online or hope that the company that is supposed to provide that service will operate indefinitely. The irony is that for Browne this is supposed to be the MAIN reason why used games should not be sold. They are not supposed to be seen as "disposable entertainment." But this point may render that one irrelevant. More on that in my last paragraph.
The same, by the way, applied to books, movies on tape or disk, etc. You bought it, you have the right to sell it or keep it. In contrast, you don't own a phone service or electricity. That is an idiotic analogy.
If there is a double standard that should be followed and that's likely not a slippery slope, it's that the same argument should now cut across different media. In which case, you don't own not just video games but all movies, music, reading materials, graphics, and any type of information you bought in any format and that is copyrighted. With that, there should be no used goods market. And if it unfortunate that the good requires activation from a company that no longer exists, tough luck.
Thus, it appears that the solution that publishers are moving to is the removal of game ownership. When you "buy" a game, you don't own it unless the publisher states otherwise. If activation and similar requirements are in place, then you can only continue playing it as long as the publisher wants you to do so. If it removes the service or goes out of business, then you won't be able to play it at all. Since you can't own games, then there will be no used market.
With that, it will not surprise me if gamers start complaining, if not move to publishers that won't follow such restrictions, which from what I remember, is one of the conclusions given in the video.
So much for non-points.
If sucking out as much money as possible is the goal, then only one side is logically supported. And ultimately it may move to removal of ownership of games: you can only rent them, with the time limited by online activation services that may be removed. With that, the used games market will become much smaller, limited only to games that you are allowed to own and sell.GonzoGamer said:
The article was NOT meant to support my arguments but to show that no facts were given. Ironically, the quote you gave is proof of that. In contrast, this is more helpful because it gives data and arguments based on data:Draech said:
"If You Resell Your Used Games, The Terrorists Win"
http://hothardware.com/News/If-You-Resell-Your-Used-Games-The-Terrorists-Win/
One more time: I shared Browne's article to show that no data was given. What's more important is that his conclusion, that games are not supposed to be seen as "disposable entertainment," may go against publishers' measures to deter used game sales. That's all explained in my previous message. Do you understand my argument now?
Now, try the next article I shared. It counters generally all of Browne's points using data from the game industry and from Gamespot. In short, it contains facts that you claimed you gave but did not.
I read your messages. The problem is that you mention that you gave facts, but you gave none. And you still continue harping on the irrelevant point below:
One more time: it is a slippery slope argument as you are assuming that "services are services." That is completely wrong. Buying a video game is NOT the same as paying for electrical service. You pay a license for the first and a service to the other. Stop giving wrong analogies.
Your last point, that I am setting up a strawman, is also completely wrong as video games were sold without online activation in the past, and some still are. There is NO misrepresentation of the issue given that.
Finally, I NEVER stated that you argued that ownership will be removed. Read my message very carefully and see for yourself. What I am saying is shared by L1 and what I think is the only way for publishers to stop the sale of used games. Or do you think there will be other ways?
But this only proves my point and highlights how capitalism is just devolving into looterism; and it's obvious that the game industry isn't the only culprit.Draech said:
Rather than seeing how they can adapt and add value to the industry (which is by the way how successful businesses flourish) they only look at how they can squeeze as much money out of the consumer right now. Both gamestop and the publishers (hell even the platform developers) are guilty of this.
That's not right! Loss of money is NOT the same as loss of the opportunity to make money. If they were the same, then all business will argue that they are losing money no matter how profitable they are!Draech said:
Which not surprisingly is what publishers are doing given this topic!
See, this is what I mean: you equate money lost with the opportunity to make money lost. They're not the same! To show that used games sold leads to money lost, we should be seeing DECREASING sales for the game industry, and the second article shows otherwise.
No, the ONLY horseshit is coming from you. In fact, every point you made in the paragraph above describes what YOU have been doing perfectly, e.g., arguing that statistics are irrelevant (and then waiting for me to give them and using that to bolster your views), comparing games to "all services," arguing that any "doctrine" should include the right not to buy it, etc. Let's not forget the completely ridiculous analogy between buying games with paying for electricity.
Wait, I thought statistics are irrelevant. So why the sudden turnaround?
Profits are not the same as revenues. And far from your claim that the article gives points randomly, it does the complete opposite: counter each non-proven assertion by Browne point by point.
For example, it was claimed that pre-owned games lead to loss of money. That's not true: sales have been going up each year. The only time it went down involved problems with the Wii and DS titles, and that didn't involve used pre-owned games.
Next, it was claimed that pre-owned games are the reason why game prices are high, and yet no publisher has stated that they will lower game prices if there is a decrease in sales for used games.
Given that, what is driving high game prices? The next chart shows that plus a cost curve for each generation of games. At that rate, not even the removal of used games will help!
THAT is the context of the paragraph you shared. Put simply, the problem isn't the used games market but increasing costs. That's why the writer argues that shutting down that market won't matter in the long term, because after that, given the cost curve, costs will continue rising. What will happen then?
That's the point in the last paragraph of the article which you didn't mention: removing the used games market will NOT bring down prices. However, it will cover increasing costs, but only to a point when the cost curve trend will lead to another increase in costs that even gains from a closed used games market will NOT cover. When that happens, prices will have to go up.
Finally, the point that wasn't raised in the article is this: how will publishers close the pre-owned market? Unless political lobbying is strong enough, I don't think they will be able to encouraging passing of laws to do that. In which case, what happens next? Well, think of it this way: someone mentioned the issue of piracy, which also concerns publishers. As shown in some recent titles, they have been experimenting with various ways to prevent piracy, and several of the schemes may also be used to prevent the sale of pre-owned games: online activation, continuous verification, locking the game to a particular product key and ID of the device where the game is installed, putting parts of the game online and requiring online access while playing the game, etc. But one option to supplement these may be placed in the TOA: that you don't own the game. Instead, you are given the license to play it, and the publisher can revoke that license after a certain period. In that case, the servers that check for online activation or that feed parts of the game may be shut down. You can't complain because you don't own what you bought; you simply rented it or was given the right to use it by the publisher for a certain period. And following what you wrote ealier, if the gamer doesn't like such terms, he can choose not to play the game, or maybe patronize publishers who will not require such terms.
Keep in mind that this option not only weakens the pre-owned market and piracy, it also strengthens publishers' needs to sell as many copies of as many titles as possible. Note that in the article it was stated that publishers may be releasing many titles, many of which don't do well, with the few that do well paying for the losses due to most. And since several games are now being sold digitally, then this becomes a better business model for publishers. To recap:
1. Publishers may require that gamers don't own games that they buy; instead, they are given a license to use them for a limited amount of time. With that, there won't be used games to sell. This will be necessary if no laws are passed not allowing pre-owned games to be sold.
2. Require activation, putting parts of the game online, etc. That way, it will be more difficult to pirate the game. Also, it provides for more opportunities to make money. For example, if you need to buy a new device to play your game, the publisher may require you to buy a new copy of the game because the old one was registered for your old device. This also makes attempts to sell used games useless.
The same process can also be used to make even more money, e.g., offer a "complete" game and then DLCs, etc., for a "better experience" for additional fees. Many of these points were mentioned in the video.
3. If prices go up, gamers will have no choice but to accept that. But publishers will have to assume that given their increasing costs (again, see the cost curve mentioned in the article) gamers will have increasing discretionary income to buy the same number of games (or more) even at higher prices. Will this happen in the long term? With that, your senseless argument, that gamers who don't like such terms can go away, makes no sense, as publishers NEED those gamers to buy MORE games to cover their increasing costs.
4. Browne's argument, that gamers shouldn't sell games that they bought because games are not supposed to be "disposable entertainment," ironically works AGAINST what publishers want, i.e., gamers should BUY MORE games and NOT SELL their old games. In short, for the gaming industry to continue profiting, games HAVE to be disposable entertainment. At the same time, given the cost curve, gamers have to buy more games each time, or publishers have to find MORE ways to make more money from the same gamers.
So, do you still think I am giving a straw man, or do you think I very much described the current phenomenon? And outside the senseless argument that "if you don't want it, then don't patronize it," would you be happy with the four points I raised above?
Well said! This supports my most recent message and, as you put it, very much describes what is now taking place in other media businesses. With rising costs and the increasing need to make more profits to satisfy investors, not only more titles have to be made but more sales have to take place. That is why, as you put it, they need to "squeeze as much money out of the consumer right now." In some e-book and digital music markets, what you buy is locked to your device, etc. If your device no longer works and you have to buy a new one, then you may lose all of the e-products you bought. That's why ultimately removal of ownership of what consumers buy is what publishers want: that they, consumers can no longer sell what they actually don't own, and they will have to buy the product again if another device to access it is used. Meanwhile, used products are purchased at the lowest rate possible and then sold at significantly higher rates, with consumers only getting a fraction to be used as credit to, among other things, buy new games.GonzoGamer said:
With some games at around $50 or so a title, it may now be increasingly difficult for gamers to buy more games, which is why they need to get more credit by selling their old games. Publishers, meanwhile, have to release more titles and sell more of each title to ensure higher sales, which is the only way to cover their increasing costs and satisfy their investors. Costs, meanwhile, may be going up because, among other things, gamers want games with better graphics, etc.
The last thing that publishers want to happen is, ironically, more gamers complaining and moving away, probably to indie developers or publishers who don't want restrictions, if not resorting to piracy.
If any, this is probably an important point that L1 did not not raise, and it doesn't sound comforting because the implication is that at least for complex and more costly games, the game industry will ultimately fall apart.
I meant value to the industry and perhaps even society.Draech said:
But to your point,
Starhawk does one thing good and one thing bad: it has the online pass which only raises the value of the product for the publisher while diminishing the value for the consumer. The thing that it does right is patching the game to include more features and even a new multiplayer map. That not only adds value for the consumer but it also discourages them from trading the title in.
And I'm sure if they put their minds to it they can find plenty of other ways to make gamers not want to trade in their games.
I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now and already I can see myself playing this game for a couple of years as I'm looking forward to playing it with the other characters. No way I'm trading that one.
See, I don't trade my games in to gamestop or buy used games (anymore; I did when I had less money) but I do swap with friends. Borrowing or renting a game with an online pass makes it less likely that I'll buy a new copy since usually the most compelling part of the game is the multiplayer.
It's the other way round. Game companies argue that they are losing money because of used games sold. But the numbers show that they aren't losing money. If any, they are arguing that they are losing the opportunity make more money, but that's not the same as losing money.Draech said:
Thus, the problem isn't that I'm sidestepping "the argument over and over." It's that you're supporting an argument--that game companies are losing money--that's not even true.
See what I mean? You're making the same error again: a lost sale is not the same as publishers losing money. To lose money, you need to show that your sales went down from the previous year. But that's not taking place.
If you keep equating losing money with losing the opportunity to make more money, then you can argue that all companies lose money no matter how profitable they are!
This reason makes NO sense whatsoever.
Any reports to back this up? What will be more important is to draw out the finding that most gamers don't want to buy trade-ins, don't want to trade in old games, and want to buy new games at full price. That's the best way to show that they are being "forced" to buy what they don't want.
Again, an opportunity cost is not the same as actual ones. For your argument to be true, we need to see that opportunity cost in game companies' financial statements, leading to a drop in sales from the previous year.
But we do see an increase in game sales ever year! In fact, the trend line shows increasing sales, revenues, and profits for many years, even as used games were being sold. The problem, as pointed out earlier to you, is that costs are going up for each generation of games, such that at some point even units of used games converted to new units sale won't cover the cost increase!
Exactly! That's the point that I made at the end of my last message! But several games sold today are not offered in that way yet, which is why your analogy is wrong.
There is a difference between "is" and "can be." When you buy games today, you can sell them to others. That's why it's not the same as paying for electricity. In the future, they will be offered as services. And that's when you can compare them with electricity.
On the other hand, we will also have to consider pricing and what gamers can afford to pay. That's why your point that those who don't want to pay shouldn't avail of the service is not helpful, especially for publishers who see rising costs and need MORE gamers.
If you believe that gamers aren't affected by the prices of games, then what I offered is not a straw man. It's as simple as that.
It was mentioned in the article. You will find it as an argument given by some experts who argue that there should be no used games market. For example,
"Braben: pre-owned keeps prices high, 'kills single player games'"
http://www.oxm.co.uk/39927/braben-pre-owned-keeps-prices-high-kills-single-player-games/
Do me a favor and write posts with substance and logic, and hopefully with evidence this time. And by evidence I mean numbers, e.g., sales, etc. Enough with the idiotic excuse that statistics are irrelevant.