Total Biscuit vs the Jimquisition

[CannibalCorpses]

Well, i'm in the library so i can't watch either video but from what i have seen from Total Biscuit in the past he is a moron whose opinion doesn't have any resonance with me. I don't back Jim either but the few videos i have seen from him have made sense, even if his humour and presentation style really fucking aggravate me. The day i use other peoples opinions instead of my own is the day i 'deserve' to be put down though so who gives a shit what either of them has to say?

But the whole issue of used games sales is a smoke screen to hide the fact that new games are overpriced and the drop in price on used games shows a much clearer indication of what a games value actually is. I couldn't give 2 fucks about the industry and how much money it is or isn't making...that is nothing to concern me. All i concern myself with is value for money and with a few rare exceptions, games are never worth 40 quid (or the price new, depending where you live).

I look through my games collection and most of the games i have paid full price for have actually been long and entertaining. The games i have bought second hand are of slight interest and tend to get played and finished within a day or 2. Nothing would have made me pay full price for the second hand games so it's not the industry losing sales on used copies, it's second hand retailers making money out of poor products that failed to capture my imagination.

 

[StriderShinryu]

TotalBiscuit's view on this basically mirrors the view I've put forward for years now. The issue with used games is not specifically the used games, it's the parasitic GameSpot style of buying/selling them that has taken over almost everyone involved in the used games market. Also, as he notes, there really is no real defence of used games being some sort of messiah for the industry. At best, you can offer explanations for why certain things like the trade-in to buy new games continuum may have a minor tangible positive impact.

As for the question of TB vs JS? Jim has always felt like an aggrendized aggregate of forum whining to me. TB feels more like he brings his own opinions to the table. Now, I'm not saying Sterling doesn't honestly share the views of the forum going majority, I'm just saying his views don't feel genuine because it's the same, in my opinion, eyebrow raising view you see dogpiled on on every internet forum. I don't find myself agreeing with either of them all of the time, but I do tend to agree with TB more often. So yeah, TB all the way if I've gotta make a choice.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I really do need to say one thing, here:

I'm siding (with/against) (TB/Jim) and (deciding/already agree) (game companies/game retailers) are the (good/bad) guy!

Let's get one thing clear.

Companies that make games, and companies that sell games, have one thing in common: they're both companies. They both operate with a profit motive, and seek to maximize their profits through whatever means available. Your satisfaction, welfare, or even rights, as a consumer are not their primary interest. Because the party of your choice is a bad guy here, does not mean the other party is a good guy. This isn't "retailers" versus "publishers" from our standpoint as consumers, this is "consumers" versus "corporations" as the endgame here for either is to maximize their own profits by eliminating competition; that comes out of our pockets as consumers.

 

[Rellik San]

There is only way to settle this: We need to get Jim and TB into a jelly/mud wrestling match, complete with thongs, the winner is clearly right whilst the other only has their loss of dignity to accompany them... THAT! Is the British way.

We should have Yahtzee referee it too, we have to keep these things British.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ok here is a good question, do you know what gamestop doesn't sell? Xbox, ps1 games old nintendo games, Hell most are getting out of ps2 and psp if they haven't already gotten out. Since there isn't a gamestop nor any other big retailer selling these. All you have are the retro mom and pop stores or people themselves online. But you know who can sell these game digitally have have been able for years on end? MS, Sony, and Nintendo.

So where are the steam sales? And no I'm not talking about half off a 40 or 20 dollar game, Where is what would be a steam sale or hell even a weekly sale on these old console games you can't even buy new anywhere? Nintendo has just recently ran a certain game for 30 cents but still wants 15 bucks for any old n64 game. Where are my other games under a dollar or around a dollar or hell under the 5 dollar price point these guys won't drop under. During a summer steam sale there are about 50 to 100 games on sale for under 2 dollars and that's being kind. And that's just steam, The indie bundles and such themselves I can get multiple games for a dollar.

Hell lets look at 3 recent indie bundles.

Double fine bundle, stacking, costume quest and psychonauts for as low as a dollar, brutal legends with it for 8 dollars and the preorder and other junk at 35 and 80. Aren't the 4 games both all available digitally on 360 and ps3, why not get all of them for 8 dollars on the consoles?

Alan wake weekly, for a dollar I can get alan wake and alan wake american nightmare plus a ton of bouns stuff, Why can't I pick up the games on 360 for a dollar? I can still buy this one now till the end of the week.

THQ bundle, Some of if is pc exclusive but hell red faction armageddon, darksiders, metro 2033, and saints row, a game still sold new for 40 bucks, I picked up those and some pc exclusives for less then 8 bucks all of em. Pretty sure what I listed are on both consoles on demand, so why not cheap?



They'll do anything to cling to their outdated pricing model, used games or not, Digital or not, even not being sold new or not. They've had their on demand gaming for years and steam's been around for twice that. If they were gonna grow hearts and get into competing sales instead of just greed, they would of done it long ago.

Why stream doesn't sell older games? Is that what you're asking.

I can answer that, steam isn't compatible with all older games. Games like Arcanum and Fallout 1-2 need a lot of rework to make it work, especially with the overlay steam has because of some difference in some library. I forgot its name.

Its the reason older games popping up on steam are such a big deal, normally older games don't have support because most developers have gone under, so there is no patch or even people to make deals with. Its the reason soul reaver made waves on this very forum when it got on steam.

Older games are just very hard to get on steam, the older it is the harder it is. I know this because I tried to run old games like arcanum in steam, they didn't work.

Older games are GOG's thing, because they don't need to convert a game to run in a platform like steam. All they need to to make sure the game works on an OS and let people download the installer.

No asking why I can get the same games dirt cheap on steam or other places and why consoles don't do the same with their older games that they don't have to piss off the new retailers with or to compete in a market where I can sometimes even get the same games for a fraction of the price on pc. I'm lucky if I can a good xbox classic for under 20 bucks or under 10 bucks. I have a massive selection of stuff and tons of stuff that would have a normal asking price of like 40 bucks for my 10 dollars elsewhere on pc.

 

[Gatx]

That's the developers owned by publishers. Not independent studios. Not everyone is owned by EA or Activision. deals based on sales are made, because "paying a dev for a game" only applies if the publisher's offer of "make this for this platform" offer is taken or publishers take an interest in the game early in development.

Past that, its sales. Publishers take a huge amounts of profits though, with rumors going as high as 30-50%. Developers DO NOT get paid enough from publishers, and neither from console manufacturers for exclusives.

Developers should get royalties because they are the ones on the line here, they have the bulk of the risk because how cut throat publishers are.

So basically if I'm understanding this correctly, the idea is that devs should make more money, and in order for that to happen, either more new games are sold, or publishers should pay the devs more or give them a bigger a cut of the profits. But obviously they wouldn't want to do the latter so that's where the targeting of the used games market comes in.

But I'm not a business person, far from it. Maybe the other way just isn't feasible so they HAVE to go after used games.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

WhoTF is Total Biscuit? And why is the name being used in the same sentence as Jim's?

Anyway, Jim's got the right of it. I'm not buying the XOne unless it can be modded for homebrew purposes/media centre capabilities (perfectly legal where I am). Too many restrictions, I disagree with the route MS are taking and regardless, I've been content playing on my higher spec and more capable PC for long enough now that my 360 needs an update every time I turn it on.

The PS4, depending on what it does with used games (if anything at all) and always-online reqs. is the only possibility of a next gen console if I were to buy one, homebrew/emulators/etc excepted. The Wii U is frankly ridiculous with it's silly controller and tragic games line-up, despite that in all other ways it's perfect.

 

[rasputin0009]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

On a side-note, what I don't like about the Xbone is the daily DRM combined with the always-on Kinect. I really don't want updated advertisements to what I've been doing, wearing, or saying. And other privacy issues that come along with it, too. But, in the case of used games, fuck'em. Gaming is a luxury, if you can't afford a full-price game every so often, then find another form of entertainment. You don't need to buy 10 used games a month and then sell them the next month.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

Let's be careful to keep "developers" and "publishers" distinct from one another, as with the exception of a handful of companies, developers and publishers are distinct from one another. Developers are the ones actually making the games; publishers finance, distribute, and advertise. Publishers are middlemen just as are retailers, and neither have consumer-friendliness as their first priority.

 

[rasputin0009]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

Let's be careful to keep "developers" and "publishers" distinct from one another, as with the exception of a handful of companies, developers and publishers are distinct from one another. Developers are the ones actually making the games; publishers finance, distribute, and advertise. Publishers are middlemen just as are retailers, and neither have consumer-friendliness as their first priority.

Publishers aren't as separate from the developers as you might think. They're the ones who keep servers going, pay for updates to games, pay for support, etc. They're still in the game publishing business to get games made. Developers and publishers go hand in hand because a developer hardly ever has enough resources to make a game on their own.

 

[nevarran]

They both make some valid points. Can't say who's opinion it "the right one" tho', these are issues from the kitchen, and I'm merely a consumer.

Cars are a luxury too...

That's debatable. If your work place is far from your home and there is no public transport or something, the car becomes more than a simple luxury.

 

[rasputin0009]

Gaming is a luxury, if you can't afford a full-price game every so often, then find another form of entertainment. You don't need to buy 10 used games a month and then sell them the next month.

Cars are a luxury too, does that mean I can't sell my car to get a new one now?

Just because its in the best interest of the developers and publishers, doesn't mean its the right move. Monopolization is in the best interest of them as well, but its something that is very anti-consumer and hampers our rights. Thats the thing about rights - you don't have to like them, you don't have to like how people use them, but people are allowed to use them as they see fit.

You didn't watch the video that this thread is about, did you?
He totally debunks the car analogy within the first five minutes. Because it's obviously stupid.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Taking away used games doesn't give publishers a monopoly because publishers aren't one big company.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

TB get's most his games sent to him for free and by his own admission, he's pretty damn well off financially speaking (I swear if he mentions the fact that he uses TWO Titans, or that $3000 or so TV one more time...) Anyway, I doubt he can see this issue from the point-of-view of someone who is forced to be far more conservative with their spending.
He might have been one of those people at one point in his life but he sure ain't anymore.

Second-hand games are not "destroying" the entire industry, it's just a scapegoat. Whether it makes an impact, be it good or bad is debatable but it's hardly this leech upon the entire gaming market. Not everyone can afford brandspanking new titles charged at a premium price. For some, second-hand games are the only way they can play anything.

More importantly, unlike what TB seems to believe, the gaming industry is NOT living in it's own separate world where it and IT alone is affected far far more by second hand sales than anyone else in the world. Yes, movies and music make up for second-hand sales in other ways but SO DOES THE GAMING INDUSTRY! I can't believe he ignores the fact that dlc and online-passes are easily making up for any loss in second-hand sales. If someone get's a game second-hand, if they want extra online content they still need to bleedin pay for it!

Also, can people stop acting like these massive multi-national publishers/developers are the "little guy" in this argument? EA, Activision, Ubisoft...They are raking in millions upon millions, maybe more when put together. The CEO of Activision is one of the highest paid CEO's in America, I think they're doing alright.

The real "little guys" (Indy developers) make sales exclusively online, so the only problem they would have is piracy, and that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Publishers aren't as separate from the developers as you might think. They're the ones who keep servers going, pay for updates to games, pay for support, etc. They're still in the game publishing business to get games made. Developers and publishers go hand in hand because a developer hardly ever has enough resources to make a game on their own.

You just explained the problem yourself: they're middlemen. They're financiers (who expect maximized returns-of-investment, and are in turn accountable to their shareholders), and distributors. They don't actually make the games, they fund them, and they're not in the business for the art, they're in it for the profit like any other financier.

And, mind you, they're the step that for being the financial backers, are in the position of power in the developer-publisher dynamic, especially when publishing companies engage in long periods of vertical integration such has been occurring for the past decade. This situation, especially looking at EA and Activision and the drive to create in-house digital distribution venues, is not dissimilar to the studio system of Hollywood during the mid-20th Century. "The Big Picture" by Movie Bob on this very site has an entire series of videos dedicated to the studio system and its impact on Hollywood and the film industry, and viewing it from the perspective of the trends within the game industry is quite enlightening.

 

[Vigormortis]

Oh boy! Another Total Biscuit video!

Let me guess: It'll be TB taking a handful of valid points (at best) and mixing them with a freight trains worth of bullshit, a host of exaggerations and lies, and a wealth of illogical, paranoid posturing. And, of course, blathering on for twenty minutes longer than he needs, repeating his points over and over, and refuting his own assertions seconds after making them.

*watches video*

Yep! Just what I thought. What ever genuine, quantifiable criticisms he brought up were quickly lost in the deluge of bullshit and ignorance.

And people look to this guy for "insightful" advice? Good lord...

Oh TB, if ever I'm in need of proof that web celebrities are (in not all, but most cases) idiots, you never fail to provide.

I really do need to say one thing, here:

I'm siding (with/against) (TB/Jim) and (deciding/already agree) (game companies/game retailers) are the (good/bad) guy!

Let's get one thing clear.

Companies that make games, and companies that sell games, have one thing in common: they're both companies. They both operate with a profit motive, and seek to maximize their profits through whatever means available. Your satisfaction, welfare, or even rights, as a consumer are not their primary interest. Because the party of your choice is a bad guy here, does not mean the other party is a good guy. This isn't "retailers" versus "publishers" from our standpoint as consumers, this is "consumers" versus "corporations" as the endgame here for either is to maximize their own profits by eliminating competition; that comes out of our pockets as consumers.

Pretty much. Shame most people don't see this.

In fact, our ceaseless arguing over the "true" bad guy (publishers or retailers), has us basically fighting over which one is given carte blanche to screw us over.

Pardon me as I go Godwin on the topic, but it's like we're fighting over whether we want Stalin or Hitler to subjugate us.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

To everyone who says "Used games take away from a developer" let me say this. Unless they are contracted for royalties or published the game themselves they do not (and should not) get ANY money from game sales. The reason is they are already paid to make the game, they don't get paid after (again unless it's in the contract and that is a stupid deal to make). If you bought a game used that EA published (Mass Effect 3) then EA didn't get the money for that game, programmer Joe won't lose that money. Second issue I have with this, why should a publisher be able to double dip once a sale is made. By the way people act we shouldn't be able to share anything without paying the maker of the product per person we share it to.

Lets make it fair, if we want to watch a movie we bought (not rented, bought) and wanted to have a movie night then you should have to pay the movie studio/publisher a fee per person. And if you wanna say that is too far it really isn't, because you bought the movie for your personal entertainment, not a license to share with others. If you have a family and you want to buy a movie the whole family can enjoy, then you need to buy each member a copy. Can't share accounts either, if you bought a app with one account and you want your who ever to play with it, you should buy that person a copy of the app on his account (or tell him to buy it himself).

Also games have costed 50-80 dollars in the bloody 90's and I don't wanna hear crap about pricing. If publishers want to charge more nothing will stop them, most did it because a game had "24 megs of memory". We have games that can go up in the millions, yet is at a stable 60 bucks.

That's the developers owned by publishers. Not independent studios. Not everyone is owned by EA or Activision. deals based on sales are made, because "paying a dev for a game" only applies if the publisher's offer of "make this for this platform" offer is taken or publishers take an interest in the game early in development.

Past that, its sales. Publishers take a huge amounts of profits though, with rumors going as high as 30-50%. Developers DO NOT get paid enough from publishers, and neither from console manufacturers for exclusives.

Developers should get royalties because they are the ones on the line here, they have the bulk of the risk because how cut throat publishers are.

...for the first part let me said this, yeah I know I even said

Unless they are contracted for royalties or published the game themselves they do not (and should not) get ANY money from game sales.

pretty much saying they have to publish the game on their own.

And do you know why a publisher takes in a huge amount of money? Because they are the ones investing on the project. They in a nut shell are contracting people to make a project for them, and most of the time that contract doesn't include royalties. And I don't think developers should get royalties, because the only risk they have is getting let go by the publisher if the game does poorly. And if the game does well the publisher keeps them to make more games, so the only risk is if they do a piss poor job and not being a asset to the publisher to keep. The most risk a developer has is IF the game did poorly (which honestly can be seen as you did a bad job) he is let go, or his studio gets let go. While that is bad, a publisher is still out of a lot of money in trying to sell the game.

In the end they both want to make as much money as possible, that's what a company does.

 

[Tom_green_day]

He's demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the music industry. If anything, smaller and medium size artists are even more strapped for cash than game developers, they get all their money from live shows- downloads and the ease of acquiring music means that sales of music and CDs is practically nonexistant.
Without used games, I wouldn't be into gaming. When I see a new franchise or game I want to buy, I buy it pre-owned. If I like the game, I'll buy any future or previous installments from the developer. This means the retailer gets my money for the pre-owned game, and the publisher gets my money for the others and any DLC. I doubt the developer gets any anyway.
He's kinda venomous about Game in that video. When I go in there, all the sales assistants are polite and helpful and do not push used games and harder than new games. In fact, sometimes used games are put behind the newer games of the same game.
However I'm a firm hater of TB so I may just be biased.