Poll: Boycott Rage

[Something Amyss]

Imagine if you created something, and you expected to make so much money off it. Then some other dude is like, "Oh hey man, just drop them off at my place, I'll sell them." Then you come back and you realize he's been running a program to get used games back and sell them again to make a big profit for himself and not give any to you.

Now imagine the second-hand market has been a thriving part of every major medium and pretty much every industry for ages.

I would hope you would be adult enough to cope with the fact.

I don't get the point of making excuses for the game industry. They seem to believe they are special snowflakes, more entitled to money than other entertainment media, and are trying to recoup artificial "losses" from used media. In the long run, it's only going to get worse and hurt the new consumer as well. As other media are becoming more progressive due to the follies of various anti-piracy schemes, the games industry is becoming more regressive.

And the problem is on the used market? A long-term staple of all entertainment media?

 

[Hartmansgrad]

As much as I'm in favour of giving developers their due I honestly think that the consumer is overlooked when ever this Gamestop vs Developers argument is raised. Games are, for the most part, very expensive and I'd question whether when placed against other entertainment media anyone can claim that triple A games are unquestionably value for money.

Hell, I'm all in favour of Developers using DLC and content locks to promote first hand sales...if the cost of games drops to parity with the current state of the second hand market. The resultant knock on effect on the second hand market would mean that places like gamestop make next to nothing from sales whilst people that pick up second hand titles and then buy DLC would net the developers the main proportion of money spent on the title over all. If protection from second hand sales will harm consumers, there has to be carrot as well as stick, especially as mobile gaming is eclipsing the console market and becoming a possible substitute.
Then again, I've been playing the hell out of Mount and Blade, a game from a decidedly small fry studio, a game that I purchased for less than a quarter of the cost of a triple A title and directly from the developer...so perhaps it's time to start looking for value for money elsewhere?

 

[joshuaayt]

How do used games differ from used cars, or books, or anything else? The used product market is hardly unique to video games, after all. When I bought a Harry Potter book from a second hand bookstore, I didn't do it at the cost of few pages.

...Not that I care about RAGE, especially. Not my thing, but fight the good fight, I guess.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

not many seem to realise; alot of people wouldnt buy new games as often if they couldnt trade them. kill the used games market and developers will see a drop in revenue from this type of customer

 

[Dogstile]

I mean, you have a valid reason

But he doesn't have a valid reason, at all.

At all, at all, at all, at all.

He claims that they shouldn't be allowed to do this because we're the ones putting money forward for the game. But the only time in which it happens is when you buy it second hand, and in that case, you're not paying the developers for the game. You're just paying the game store.

So no, horrible reason.

So? You don't have to pay the developers. The developers sell to the game stores. After that it moves down to the second hand market. Every other industry does that.

And you can't use the wear and tear argument, because wear and tear is completely different from purposely locking content. I love how bending over for greedy publishers is the norm now.

 

[TheDooD]

I posted the following angry reply, but I think I misunderstood the person I was replying to. Sorry. I have removed the quote regarding which post I was replying to. I think I made some good points though.

As you will be able to clearly see... I believed that the original poster, the person who I quoted, was claiming that Gamestop only made money from used game sales. This sent me on a rant that went into my feelings on the whole new vs used problem.

enjoy...

-

What are you smoking? Gamestop absolutely 100% makes money when you buy games new. EVERY TIME! If Gamestop didn't make money on new games, they wouldn't CARRY new games. How do you think other retailers survive if the store doesn't make money on new sales?

omg...

If you buy a new copy of a game from a Gamestop location... Gamestop makes a percentage approximately equivalent to what Target or Walmart get when a copy is sold. The reason why Gamestop pushes used copies so hard is because...

when gamestop sells a used copy...

instead of making a percentage...

they get every penny...

To explain this better. New game retails for $60. I buy it brand spanking beautiful new from Gamestop. Gamestop gets $12. For brevity, let us assume that the game developers get the remaining $48 (even though they don't, but I don't wanna get into that). I realize that I hate the game and trade it in at Gamestop. They sell it to you, used for $50 and get every cent. You love the game, but you hit hard financial times and trade it in for cash. Gamestop sell the game used for $40 and gets every cent.

Now... on one single CD disk... Gamestop has earned $102... the people who INVESTED IN THAT GAME FOR MANY YEARS AND SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO DEVELOP IT have made $48 (actually more like $20 but I don't wanna explain why)...

I'm against the BS developers are doing to prevent used sales, but don't pretend it isn't a problem. To help you understand why the game developers feel slighted... pretend you wrote a brilliant novel... best seller... it has sold over 100,000 copies... you only got paid for 10,000 of those copies because the rest were bought from Bookstop used. Bookstop earned 100% of the profits off of 90,000 copies and you got 20% of the profit from 10,000 copies. You wrote the book. It took you six years and you invested half as much as you made. Bookstop didn't invest a dime in your book. They bought their copies from your customers, so you didn't receive a penny from Bookstop. I think you'd be angry.

The percentage of used games purchased to new games purchased is EXTREME. Other industries, such as car, book, and movie industries... they have to deal with used sales, but not to the degree games are fighting it. The automotive industry got as bad, but they solved the problem by incorporating used sales into the practices of their brand owned dealerships. They solved used sales by embracing used sales.

Unfortunately, game companies can't do this. You can't go into a Bioware dealership and buy used copies of Dragon Age directly from the developer. That would be impractical (but awesome). So the game industry needs to figure out a solution that will save their industry without alienating consumers or else we'll be seeing some very bad years and a lot of lost jobs in the game industry.

you realize Gamestop has to BUY games before they can sell them so publishers get their cash then and they get money off the single hardcopy purchase. That's twice they got paid and you're bitching about used copies which fund there need to buy newer games and products. Gamestop sells games they aren't Wal-Mart or Target that sells a verity of goods. Open your eyes and realize publishers are biting the hand that feeds them and without gamestop as a middle man there be a lot of people unable to play games because they didn't have cash at the time, didn't get a chance to buy the game new or just wants to play an other game. Get over yourself just because you're able to buy new all the time that doesn't mean others are and demonizing them over people that pirate makes you look like a goddamn fool.

 

[TheDooD]

This is how this thread is going to look like soon.

Fight for the artist.

I don't like quoting myself, but:

If I, as an author, re-arrange the words in my book and sort them by alphabetical order instead of the story form you normally get, are you still reading a book?

If I, as a film director, were to cut up the sequence and randomly re-connect them, and play it in reverse, are you still watching a movie?

If I, as a musician, separate the lyrics from the tune, record them separately, and play the tune backwards while the lyrics remain the same way, are you still listening to music?

If I, as a game developer, cut half a code line and attach it to the next code line for every single line of code in the game, turn all the art upside down so that the characters are walking on their head, and play all the sound bits and music only at the intro and end credits, are you still playing a game?

What makes all these things different from how they normally are? You are still paying for whatever I put inside the book/movie/music/game.

^ Answer that.

What exactly are you paying for? The goods (the physical device recording the data) or the experience (the thing that makes what you do enjoyable)? If you answered experience, that means you are not buying the game for the physical goods, you are buying the experience.

Now riddle me this: If you go see a musical or a concert, you pay to enter the theatre, watch the performance, and leave. You enjoyed the experience, which the performers are doing as a service. Somehow, when you record that thing and sell in DVD form, it stops being a service. You still need the goddamn people from the performance to act their roles. How is it that it stops becoming a service when you are still watching their performance through that DVD you bought? Just because something is recorded on a device doesn't mean it stops becoming a service. The game you bought? The Triple-A title? Thats a 100-man performance you are seeing. Why do you think they prevent you from recording their performance when you are in the theatre? Because their performance is their livelihood, and IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THEM PERFORM, FUCKING PAY THEM FOR IT.

/endthread

So everytime I watch a DVD I have to shell out cash to the actors and people behind the scenes. Not get warned or anything but are you fucking crazy. Do you realize the udder mess it'll be to pay them money and what if the actors are dead where does the money go then. What you're thinking about is Syndication that only works with TV shows because guess what its on TV. It's WAY different then buying a DVD because a DVD you can choose what parts you want to watch...Shit now you can choose what you want to watch on TV because of a DVR. You want to charge people extra now for skipping the ads and or not watching the whole performance. Get out of here with that short-sighted, greedy ass mess.

 

[gbemery]

Even if you buy it from Gamestop new it doesn't support Gamestop. Gamestop doesn't make money off of new games, they only make money off the games that you buy used..

....seriously I don't know whether or not to just facepalm and move on or ask how you came up with your info? You do realize they make a sizable profit off of new game sells just like any retailer who sales a good? Yes, their widest profit margins are from the mark up on used games which can be anywhere from 50% to a whopping 90%, but they still get a sizable chunk of the new game price as well. It all depends on contracts written up on each new game but usually the retailer's profit is somewhere between 10-20% with the rest going to royalties, publisher, licensing, developer, etc. So indeed buying a new game in fact does support what ever retailer you bought it from, or else they wouldn't waste their time with launch dates they wouldn't incur the cost of staying open just so the kiddies could get their games, that according to you they don't make a profit off of, and go home to play and then skip a week of classes etc if they didn't make a profit.

 

[joshthor]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

from the developers perspective buying a game used does not make you thier customer. they dont get a cent from you unless you buy some dlc from you.

yes, it could be considered shoving it down your throat, but i will be interested in seeing how they do it. i personally dont have a problem with stuff like eas project 10 dollar - i think they did it great in dragon age - add on dlc that is completely unnessesary for the games storyline to be enjoyed. (that being said i hate the online passes)

however, if they take out a chunk of the story it will make the game much worse than it is and make people who might want to buy rage 2 not because they got the shaft in rage 1.

 

[joshthor]

I mean, you have a valid reason

But he doesn't have a valid reason, at all.

At all, at all, at all, at all.

He claims that they shouldn't be allowed to do this because we're the ones putting money forward for the game. But the only time in which it happens is when you buy it second hand, and in that case, you're not paying the developers for the game. You're just paying the game store.

So no, horrible reason.

So? You don't have to pay the developers. The developers sell to the game stores. After that it moves down to the second hand market. Every other industry does that.

And you can't use the wear and tear argument, because wear and tear is completely different from purposely locking content. I love how bending over for greedy publishers is the norm now.

every other industry has other ways to make money through thier original content. movies make most of thier money in theatres, then later sell the dvds. musicians perform in concerts to make money on top of thier cds. video games only have the one single sale.

i understand the whole "they are making us pay them more!!! raawrrr" argument, however, they arent MAKING you pay. as long as the experiance is enjoyable, the storyline is complete, and multiplayer is accessible (if its in the game) then there is no reason for you to buy the extras. they are simply tacking on an extra to thank THEIR ACTUAL PAYING CUSTOMERS (used customers are not their customers)

 

[GonzoGamer]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

Of course not. Why would they go after retailers when it's so much easier to make the legitimate consumers (who are usually so willing to get ripped off by a company that makes games they like) pay.
That's why I think all these publishers that complain about used game sales are overreacting and using it as an excuse to pull schemes like Day 1 DLC and Online Pass things. If they were really concerned and the situation was that dire, they would try and set up something that would intercept trade ins and used sales which would make money for them in the process.
It's like with oil prices: if they can come up with an excuse, they will use it. At this point it's just really transparent to the point of being insulting.

If it was that dire, then they would, but it isn't, so they won't, agreed.

However, the other thought I've had is retailers can always tell publishers that do that-complain or go after them- to go away if they don't like it. They both need each other whether us gamers like it or not, and unfortunately we're stuck in the middle in all this. The only reason I'm ok with how retailers are operating is because they have to make money too, and they do that from selling games, mainly used games, and very little from everything else. This whole business is a double edged sword, neither side is better than the other, and publishers really don't have much room to say otherwise who have to answer to shareholders.

Also, I don't see how Day One DLC and Online Pass hurts gamers, so you lost me there.

Of course not. Why would they go after retailers when it's so much easier to make the legitimate consumers (who are usually so willing to get ripped off by a company that makes games they like) pay.
That's why I think all these publishers that complain about used game sales are overreacting and using it as an excuse to pull schemes like Day 1 DLC and Online Pass things. If they were really concerned and the situation was that dire, they would try and set up something that would intercept trade ins and used sales.
It's like with oil prices: if they can come up with an excuse, they will use it.

Because if they would go after retailers, said retailers would simply say "Fine, we just don't stock your games any more, have fun", and even with how growing the digital distribution is, retail still makes nearly 50% of sales, probably more when it comes to consoles.

In the end, if you buy in retail rather than used you are getting full deal. I can't really see how Online Pass or Day 1 DLC hurts the gamer that buys games "as intended" rather than trying to get it marginally cheaper through the used sale offered at the retailer.

Yes, because the games aren?t ?intended? to be traded or sold. People have only been doing that since they were on cartridges. And they?re only marginally cheaper if you shop at gamestop. You can still find good deals online. I don?t have to buy used anymore but I used to and I honestly don?t think I would be a new game purchaser today if I couldn?t be a used game purchaser years ago. I wouldn?t have played as many games and I may not have played the games that kept me engrossed in the hobby. Believe it or not but a good amount of those used game purchasers (and even some pirates) start buying new when they start making money.
That?s where the publishers really just need to grow some balls. Retailers aren?t just going to stop carrying the game if the publisher sets up it?s own trade in program. It would just force them to be more competitive which is really what?s needed. I have no problem with them making profits but the amount of profits gamestop makes by ripping off gamers is not responsible socially or even economically in the long run.
How can you not understand how this hurts gamers? If the person can?t afford to buy the game new or trades it with a friend (and if you can?t understand that, you?re probably just so pampered you never had to actually look for a good deal ? better hope your luck holds out) then that person doesn?t deserve to play the whole game? That?s what they call in the business world: ?a dick move.? Do Library books or used DVDs have a chapter or two missing from the middle? No. Why should games be any different?

 

[Tufty94]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

 

[Epona]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

 

[WaruTaru]

So everytime I watch a DVD I have to shell out cash to the actors and people behind the scenes. Not get warned or anything but are you fucking crazy. Do you realize the udder mess it'll be to pay them money and what if the actors are dead where does the money go then. What you're thinking about is Syndication that only works with TV shows because guess what its on TV. It's WAY different then buying a DVD because a DVD you can choose what parts you want to watch...Shit now you can choose what you want to watch on TV because of a DVR. You want to charge people extra now for skipping the ads and or not watching the whole performance. Get out of here with that short-sighted, greedy ass mess.

Which is why there is a simple solution to make sure you pay for their performance: DLC, content-locking games and pass keys. The more they lock away, the better it is. So no, I don't think its crazy at all. They are already doing it. And its working. Other media just needs to find a way to implement this method into their content.

 

[Keava]

How can you not understand how this hurts gamers? If the person can?t afford to buy the game new or trades it with a friend (and if you can?t understand that, you?re probably just so pampered you never had to actually look for a good deal ? better hope your luck holds out) then that person doesn?t deserve to play the whole game? That?s what they call in the business world: ?a dick move.? Do Library books or used DVDs have a chapter or two missing from the middle? No. Why should games be any different?

How does it hurt anyone if you don't get a DLC, or some non essential content, while still being able to play the game you bought off someone for lower price? Please explain it to me, because that's the part of the whining i do not comprehend.
"Boohoo, the evil developer doesn't want to give me free stuff even tho i haven't really paid them for the game, boohoo" is all i see in those complaints. Prove me wrong, please?

Was i pampered? Doubt it, ever since i was 16 i buy my own games for my own money i worked for. There were times i would buy 1-2 games a year, there were time i only bought games from the discount shelves, i still do not buy every game i'd like to play on release. I buy 5 "new" games a year on average, only those i know i will enjoy, the rest, patiently waits for official discounts/classics editions. If i don't get a game on day-1, even month-1 my life doesn't get worse because of it. I have plenty of other things to do, and because i didn't trade in my odl game si can always replay those. Amazing thing.

Again the books/DVDs argument? Why not cars and toasters? Those are completely different industries, with very different revenues and expense costs. How much does it cost to write a book? Time, and nothing else really. Sure there are costs on publishing side of things, but the sales unless the book is complete disaster, make up for it.

Movies on the other hand make majority of money from theatre screening, that costs, gasp, about as much as that Project 10$ or whatever else little payment the publishers asks for when you buy a used game and want all the content included.
Would you prefer paying 10$ for a ticket to enter a "gaming arena" and play a new game once only, and you have to do it in one sitting, till 6 months later when it get's released in retail and you can actually buy it? Because that would be how film industry works.

Games relay purely on box sales/DLC/subscriptions. If you take that away from publishers/developers you cut the money flow. They can't afford same approach as other media industries, it's simple.

 

[wurschtl]

Sorry to disturb again but it seems this whole thread is turning in circles.

Those Guys that feel DLC should be a free download or just in the game from the beginning will not change their point of view.

Those that disagree will neither.

This is now page 13.
It started with: ?I want to boycott Rage because auf the DLC? evolved into a discussion about DLC in general (If this was intended or not by the writer of the first post is something only he knows).

There are 2 opinions and you?re either on one band wagon or the other. I doubt any one here was able to convince any one of the others to switch the wagon.

Everything here has more or less been said. Let?s see what follows.

Cheers,

 

[Tufty94]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to do this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

 

[Lionsfan]

I mean, you have a valid reason

But he doesn't have a valid reason, at all.

At all, at all, at all, at all.

He claims that they shouldn't be allowed to do this because we're the ones putting money forward for the game. But the only time in which it happens is when you buy it second hand, and in that case, you're not paying the developers for the game. You're just paying the game store.

So no, horrible reason.

So? You don't have to pay the developers. The developers sell to the game stores. After that it moves down to the second hand market. Every other industry does that.

And you can't use the wear and tear argument, because wear and tear is completely different from purposely locking content. I love how bending over for greedy publishers is the norm now.

every other industry has other ways to make money through thier original content. movies make most of thier money in theatres, then later sell the dvds. musicians perform in concerts to make money on top of thier cds. video games only have the one single sale.

i understand the whole "they are making us pay them more!!! raawrrr" argument, however, they arent MAKING you pay. as long as the experiance is enjoyable, the storyline is complete, and multiplayer is accessible (if its in the game) then there is no reason for you to buy the extras. they are simply tacking on an extra to thank THEIR ACTUAL PAYING CUSTOMERS (used customers are not their customers)

What about cars/books/furniture/pretty much everything in the world? There's been a second hand market since the beginning of capitalism and the Video Games industry acts like it's all different. Every one else deals with the second hand market, but the Video Game industry acts like they're special and shouldn't have to

 

[TheDooD]

So everytime I watch a DVD I have to shell out cash to the actors and people behind the scenes. Not get warned or anything but are you fucking crazy. Do you realize the udder mess it'll be to pay them money and what if the actors are dead where does the money go then. What you're thinking about is Syndication that only works with TV shows because guess what its on TV. It's WAY different then buying a DVD because a DVD you can choose what parts you want to watch...Shit now you can choose what you want to watch on TV because of a DVR. You want to charge people extra now for skipping the ads and or not watching the whole performance. Get out of here with that short-sighted, greedy ass mess.

Which is why there is a simple solution to make sure you pay for their performance: DLC, content-locking games and pass keys. The more they lock away, the better it is. So no, I don't think its crazy at all. They are already doing it. And its working. Other media just needs to find a way to implement this method into their content.

Like I said you are fucking crazy why in the fuck do they need to punish people that doesn't buy something new. All it does it create waste because years down the road when somebody wants to play an older game they can't legally because there aren't anymore keys so the disk itself is pointless and get thrown away. I can't play a game I bought NEW on my friends PS3 just because I already used the code on my own so as somebody that bought it new why should I get punished for playing with a friend. You need to get your head out your ass and realize that once something is sold once it's theirs and they can do whatever they want to it. The way you're thinking is only gonna create more piracy which would provide better content without any money flow which would hurt people more then the used market.

You realize how stupid it would be if used Textbooks that students used cut out whole parts because they didn't buy it new. Or you bought a season of a show on DVD and you're only able to watch the first 15mins of the thing. Why should people be tied down to a product that they're finished with and no longer need and or use. You're just thinking about how people can get paid which is damn sad. It's about recycling a product if I'm done with a game that I'll most likely never play again I'm selling it to somebody that'll be happy to play it and if money is more important then somebody happiness. Then I'll gladly welcome the 2nd crash of the gaming industry because they deserve it by treating people like dogs when they're already rich.