Poll: Boycott Rage

[Rednog]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

That isn't entirely true, from a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange for the value of the game in accordance with the traditional idea of used = devalued. Whereas gamestop takes a game, buys it from the person at this devalued price and then turns around and marks it up close to the original new price and sells it for a profit and this pretty much negates the whole devaluing that other used good have. From a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange of goods for money, no one is making a profit. Gamestop is making billions of dollars for simply being a middleman.

 

[SoulChaserJ]

I buy all my games new and could care less about what people do to make sure everyone else does. Do I think it's stupid? Yes. Does it effect me? NO. Will I ever boycott a game because of these tactics? Not likely

 

[Epona]

RAGE's solution to the problem is actually a lot more moderate.

What problem would that be? That they aren't getting money from used sales? They aren't entitled to it. It's like a bank robber complaining because he/she isn't getting a cut of all bank deposits.

 

[thiosk]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

That isn't entirely true, from a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange for the value of the game in accordance with the traditional idea of used = devalued. Whereas gamestop takes a game, buys it from the person at this devalued price and then turns around and marks it up close to the original new price and sells it for a profit and this pretty much negates the whole devaluing that other used good have. From a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange of goods for money, no one is making a profit. Gamestop is making billions of dollars for simply being a middleman.

Thats rather hyperbolic.

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ." If they were truly being the bloodsucking middlemen, in the way that chinese middlemen link up western companies with cheap labor and pocket the difference, they'd be raking in a lot more money than they are.

 

[Lilani]

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?

You may see this as screwing over their customers, but if you look at the insanely huge used market companies like GameStop are facilitating, the developers are really getting screwed, too. Probably worse than us. GameStop and other retailers have very expansive and user-friendly systems in place specifically for the buying and selling of used games. It's a system--a system designed solely for the benefit of the retailer. It gets gamers hooked on buying only the games in THEIR circulation of used games, so that they never want to even consider paying the developer for their game again.

Other media don't have this problem as much, like movies and books. Both are cheaper so the difference between buying used and buying new is nearly paltry. Plus their recent huge innovations in distribution (iTunes, the Kindle, digital copies with physical purchase, etc) guarantee the original makers a slice of the pie as well.

But with games it's different. The prices have gone far beyond what most in this economy would call "normal," so at this point any average person would be stupid not to buy used. It's a deadly cycle--higher prices means more players buy used, more players buying used means less money for developers, less money for developers means they have to be less generous with their prices.

So now developers are desperately looking for a way to solve this problem--a problem that wouldn't exist if the retailers who sell their games weren't double-dealing and stealing all the profits.

Extra Credits did an episode on this, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2068-Project-Ten-Dollar] and I think you could benefit from what they said about the subject. Basically the consensus was that GameStop is in fact the real villain here, but also that the publishers were handling it the wrong way by punishing the players rather than the retailers.

Also, I think Jim Sterling's episode on boycotts [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3857-BOYCOTT] today might help you as well. Long story short: Think long and hard before you propose we boycott something, and make sure you're boycotting the right people. Throwing the word boycott around for no good reason only serves to depreciate the word until it's lost all meaning and impact.

 

[Epona]

I buy all my games new and could care less about what people do to make sure everyone else does. Do I think it's stupid? Yes. Does it effect me? NO. Will I ever boycott a game because of these tactics? Not likely

So I bought Dragon Age new and got Shale for free but it still affects me because instead of Shale being part of the game, it is a separate download and I have to re-download it every time I reinstall the game. That affects me, it isn't the end of the world but it does affect me. Considering it takes so long to download doesn't help, BioWare's servers must be really slow because I have installed the game 2 or 3 times and everytime I am amazed at how long it takes to download.

What happens if somewhere down the line my free bonus for buying new becomes unavailable? I guess my bonus got taken from me then. This is not a good direction as sooner or later critical parts of games will be download only.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

+1 to this. Support good developers because they make your game good. Say no to developers when they make shitty games and let them crash and burn.

Unfortunately this doesn't work. The majority of game buyers pay no attention to what's missing, only what's there. They dictate what gets made.

Our only choice is to try and inform them; by hook or by crook.

Remember: DNF was profitable. Why shouldn't they make another DNF, and forget about Psychonauts 2, which didn't make much money anyway.

 

[Epona]

RAGE's solution to the problem is actually a lot more moderate.

What problem would that be? That they aren't getting money from used sales? They aren't entitled to it. It's like a bank robber complaining because he/she isn't getting a cut of all bank deposits.

Right, but you know every individual developer/publisher is going to start fighting used game sales in their own way regardless, so I'm just saying that comparatively, it's not the worst we have seen/will see.

Ah, I see.

Yes, it will get worse and I suggest gamers protest it every step of the way. The used market helps the industry and only greed is making these bad decisions that will come back the entire industry.

 

[intheweeds]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

That isn't entirely true, from a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange for the value of the game in accordance with the traditional idea of used = devalued. Whereas gamestop takes a game, buys it from the person at this devalued price and then turns around and marks it up close to the original new price and sells it for a profit and this pretty much negates the whole devaluing that other used good have. From a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange of goods for money, no one is making a profit. Gamestop is making billions of dollars for simply being a middleman.

Thats rather hyperbolic.

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ"

He's right and you admit that, even providing his data for him, but choose to call him out for a single unimportant exaggeration? Millions or billions doesn't change the argument. He's still right.

 

[Stephen Wo]

They want to get paid. Wouldn't you want to get paid for something you put a lot of hard work and effort into?

 

[intheweeds]

Yes, it will get worse and I suggest gamers protest it every step of the way. The used market helps the industry and only greed is making these bad decisions that will come back the entire industry.

Understand first that I really am just asking your opinion in friendly way, so no need to get mad. But how does the used market help the industry? Seems to me it helps Gamestop make money and gamers get cheap games, but how does it help the industry?

 

[Rednog]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

That isn't entirely true, from a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange for the value of the game in accordance with the traditional idea of used = devalued. Whereas gamestop takes a game, buys it from the person at this devalued price and then turns around and marks it up close to the original new price and sells it for a profit and this pretty much negates the whole devaluing that other used good have. From a friend or ebay you are making a direct exchange of goods for money, no one is making a profit. Gamestop is making billions of dollars for simply being a middleman.

Thats rather hyperbolic.

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ." If they were truly being the bloodsucking middlemen, in the way that chinese middlemen link up western companies with cheap labor and pocket the difference, they'd be raking in a lot more money than they are.

If someone is making billions, it means that they make more than one billion, 2 billion is more than 1 billion, that it is billions. Thus gamestop's profit is in the billions. You say that is a paltry sum, but considering they aren't producing or making any product, they are providing a fairly simple service it is actually quite a large sum of money.

 

[thiosk]

The industry as a whole has a problem. The publishers and developers have to outlay a lot of risk to develop a AAA title. That requires investment. They have to show they can protect the investment interests of the investors, or else there won't be investment, and thus there won't be a AAA title.

Its no secret the publishers have trying to figure out some way to distinguish new product from used product. This is one of the less-ugly methods. Personally, I think they should just remove the multiplayer portion of the game. THAT'LL TEACH EM. But since its the multiplayer drones that seem to dominate the marketplace these days, we're stuck having parts of the disproportionately expensive (and unplayed) single player campaign ripped out.

So whatever. I buy my games new, and if the IP is interesting (Skyrim, Space Marines, Etc) I pay full price on release. This tendency won't change.

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

snipGamestop is making billions of dollars for simply being a middleman.

Thats rather hyperbolic.

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ." If they were truly being the bloodsucking middlemen, in the way that chinese middlemen link up western companies with cheap labor and pocket the difference, they'd be raking in a lot more money than they are.

If someone is making billions, it means that they make more than one billion, 2 billion is more than 1 billion, that it is billions. Thus gamestop's profit is in the billions. You say that is a paltry sum, but considering they aren't producing or making any product, they are providing a fairly simple service it is actually quite a large sum of money.

You're joking, right? You do know the difference between revenues and profits, yes? The money in the cash register at the end of the day is revenue-- but the store still has to buy all the products on the shelves. Gamestop pulled in a good chunk of money, no doubt-- they have what, 200 stores or so? Maybe more? Online sales? Selling expensive products. The game industry is a big industry-- no surprise there. They sell hardware, new software, and yes, used software.

But their profits were only 3.5% of their revenue. The argument is that they buy used software at a "huge discount" and sell it for "near full price", and make in billions. But they weren't making billions, they're making millions.

 

[viranimus]

Ok for everyone who is saying boycotting this game is wrong I have to ask aquestion.




Why is it that the games industry gets the ability to circumvent and work around the law based on their interactivity?



There is absolutely nothing wrong with the used market. By supporting this "Lets make sure we support the developers" tripe, your also supporting putting both people and whole industries out of work. All the while making the PUBLISHER... not the developers even more profitable than they already are. This sort of action has zero impact on piracy and as such should not be even considered a part of it. What this is for is to destroy the used and rental markets. So because you think the people slaving away for their art should be compensated for their work, your ensuring that that its actually those who are above them are the only ones seeing the excess profit, all the while throwing vast scores of other people under a bus.

If it takes 100 people to develop and distribute a physical game, then it takes another 1000 to sell it and all this does is perpetuates the dangerous precedent that has been building for the last decade that is designed to do nothing but hurt vastly more people than it could ever hope to help.


Honestly its this sort of short sighted thinking that explains just exactly why were in the sort of economy we are in today, but I expect little else from the MEs. I fully support boycotting this game to combat a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped immediately before even more damage can be done.

 

[SpyderJ]

The analogies being put out are entirely backwards. Bank robbers being complaining about not being entitled to the bank's deposits? Being shocked that a 2 year old doesn't have a license? Seriously put a little more thought into these. They are taking a stance that shouldn't surprise anyone at all. The dell thing sure, but its not like they have created measures to prevent that.

The economy is difficult for some, but in my opinion it merely means that people shouldn't want to buy every single game available. If something interests you, i'm more than sure you'll be happy to fork over the money for a full priced game. And why wouldn't you? its a game that you truly want to buy. They are entitled to whatever they wish to be entitled to so long as it is within the boundaries of at least being reasonable. And this is very reasonable in my opinion.

Also I dont know about the whole "used game market" thing. Online sales go to extreme lengths to prevent any form of being able to re-sell games. Which is vastly more profitable in my opinion for a company. And if that is what it takes for the developer to get the full amount of customers that it desires, then at some point it may come to that. However I preffer to have hard copy's of my games for novelty purposes.

Point being, boycotting is a massive term and this thread is giving a minor complaint to justify it.

 

[GeorgW]

I think publishers have every right to do what they want with their game (except fucking over the devs, but that's a different argument), and these kind of things are what happens in a free market. You don't like it, make the market change it, through a boycott, or change the market, and move to a Cuba (or any other communist country). I dislike the used game market and I think withholding content is a fucked up way to combat it. But this is what happens in a free market and I happen to like free markets. I don't intend to buy Rage, but that's cuz I'm not interested in the game. Of course, if I was on the fence this would have pushed me.

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.

Welcome to the Escapist, and well done to start with such a good post. Just stay out of my basement, 'kay?

 

[Inkidu]

Oh, I won't boycott it, but I'll probably buy it second-hand to stick the bird to id. I'm fine with offering additional incentives and bonuses for people who buy new. At least that doesn't effect my single player game. Sure I look longingly but I get over it.

Now you're cordoning off my single player so I can't even enjoy the vanilla experience? I don't care how small it is it's the bloody damned principle of the thing. There's no point for a large portion of people like me who don't have internet capable of Xbox Live support. So I can't enter the little code to unlock the portion they're keeping from me. So, RAGE got downgraded from a new buy to support the industry to a second-hand-flip off buy.

I won't lie and say I buy every game new. I'm not made of enough money, but as long as Skyrim doesn't block my vanilla experience they're getting a new copy. The offered me a map. >,>

I'm tired of being punished for not having high-speed internet or whatever. So screw anyone who steps on my singleplayer or tries to make me stay on line. I don't need you, and I'm not supporting such tactics.

 

[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.