Used Games v. Piracy

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

if your having such a problem of affording basic necessities maybe you should review if you should be buying video games in the first place.

It's not that I'm having a problem with that, it's that videogames cost as much as two or three days worth of food, when they really have no reason to. I'm not going to pay that much for a game, period. I will, however, gladly pay $10 or $20, and it won't eat into my food budget -- or any other budget aside from my entertainment budget. If I'm going to drop $60 on a single purchase, I'm going to Busch Gardens or something, not buying a flippin' game.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

His point was that the equivalent loss of value for games would be things like a scuffed up case, a scratched up disc, or a missing manual. What game companies are doing is more like the used book store pulling out 50 pages or so, and then charging you to put them back in instead of taking back a defective product -- or a car dealership yanking out the air conditioner, and expecting them to pay you to put in a new one. It's just not kosher.

that would be relative if the taken portion was something of actual worth.
in this case its a sewer level that contains at best 30min of gameplay, that would be less AC and more diddly bob at the end of the antenna.
even shale(the best example and best day one DLC to date) was at best an added 2 hrs.

 

[oplinger]

Then could you get behind the cost of the technology needed to make a game, the skills needed from employees to make a game, and the materials, marketing, deals with retailers, and time and effort put into making those games, all costs money?

I'm sure you could. That's what the budget is for... the stuff they need is becoming more expensive. And so they need more money. They could just...not develop new technology...and use some hobbyist they found on craigslist. The game wouldn't be all that great I'm sure.

How many of us do you think would take an overall and significant drop in every aspect of quality in our games? ..And still pay 50 bucks for it? They need to be a "profitable business" after all.

I totally get games are expensive to make and as I said earlier buying new is better for the industry overall. I simply, regardless of the circumstances involved, draw the line at saying that publishers and developers DESERVE a cut of used game sales.

The solution to their used game problem lies in that they use almost entirely all stick and no carrot what-so-ever. They want to punish the used game buyer rather than reward the new game buyer. What they need to do is reward the new game buyer and leave the used buyer alone. My room mate worked at Gamestop at the time Lego Batman came out and they were offering those keychains with the Lego Batman characters. He said that game sold like crazy new because people wanted those stupid keychains that maybe costed a few pennies to make. Those little extras can go a long way with some people while taking away a portion of the game also goes a long way in the other direction.
=

And I'm all for something like that too. However I don't think we should be wanting to burn devs at the stake for trying to make the money back. There are many ways to do it. So far I have not seen anything worth getting upset over. They don't deserve the cut no. I never said they did. You, however, don't deserve a tiny insignificant sewer level either. Or multiplayer. Most of the time the publishers/devs don't hide these things from us. YOu pay anyway, you get what you get.

I however don't have any issues with them trying to get money off of a used sale. Especially since it's optional. When it becomes a needed payment in order for the game to function then I will be right behind you with the torches.

Your argument is tiresome as well. It's a smoke and mirror argument that was thought up by some PR guy, which has somehow been picked up by a lot of gamers. Videogames are no longer a niche product. There are almost as many households equipped to play them now as there are that are equipped to watch movies. Further, games also have multiple revenue streams: Xbox, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, PC hardcopy, PC digital distribution, and now, console digital distribution as well. These are all just as different in terms of revenue streams as theaters, pay per view, and DVDs are. As for the $40 thing, people don't avoid buying games at $60 because it's not a deal. They avoid buying at $60 because they literally can't afford it. It's not in the budget. You industry apologists get all annoyed when consumers aren't worried about the publisher's bottom line, but you don't seem to care about the consumer's bottom line at all. Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

So I'm supposed to feel bad for you because you cant afford luxuries? I'm sorry. But that's another fallacy to the board. If 60 isn't in the budget, why is 40? You could use that 40 to buy more food for your family. Save up for your children's schooling. Saving 20 dollars isn't going to do you a whole lot of good.

Also those are not alternate revenue streams. I'm not going to buy the same game for 360 and PS3. Just like I wouldn't buy a movie on blu-ray and DVD. So that is all sorts of flawed.

It's silly to accuse me of not caring about the consumers bottom line, when it's not something they need to still exist. Excuse me if that wasn't clear in common sense. However, the devs are the ones I'm worried about. Not the publishers. The publishers own tons of devs though, so to worry about the devs, I have to worry about the publisher. Else they both go out of business.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

Again buying all the stuff I mentioned used has NO COMPANY DOING ANYTHING TO LOCK IT OUT. If I elect to buy it used from someone fine I am expecting it to not be perfect, but I shouldn't have a publisher locking crap out. How would you feel if the car company who made your car came to your house and RIPPED out your radio? It's the same thing game publishers are doing.

yet again i need to point this mundane point out: digital property != physical property, you simply can not compare them.

That's a myth perpetuated by software companies. In reality, they work exactly the same way unless the distribution is completely in the digital realm. Books are every bit as much intellectual property as software is, but the publishing companies never tried to make up special contracts to protect them from the consumer, because existing copyright laws already did that. That's right -- if something is copyrighted, it's already illegal to make unauthorized copies of it. EULAs are completely unnecessary to protect that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Then could you get behind the cost of the technology needed to make a game, the skills needed from employees to make a game, and the materials, marketing, deals with retailers, and time and effort put into making those games, all costs money?

I'm sure you could. That's what the budget is for... the stuff they need is becoming more expensive. And so they need more money. They could just...not develop new technology...and use some hobbyist they found on craigslist. The game wouldn't be all that great I'm sure.

How many of us do you think would take an overall and significant drop in every aspect of quality in our games? ..And still pay 50 bucks for it? They need to be a "profitable business" after all.

I totally get games are expensive to make and as I said earlier buying new is better for the industry overall. I simply, regardless of the circumstances involved, draw the line at saying that publishers and developers DESERVE a cut of used game sales.

The solution to their used game problem lies in that they use almost entirely all stick and no carrot what-so-ever. They want to punish the used game buyer rather than reward the new game buyer. What they need to do is reward the new game buyer and leave the used buyer alone. My room mate worked at Gamestop at the time Lego Batman came out and they were offering those keychains with the Lego Batman characters. He said that game sold like crazy new because people wanted those stupid keychains that maybe costed a few pennies to make. Those little extras can go a long way with some people while taking away a portion of the game also goes a long way in the other direction.
=

And I'm all for something like that too. However I don't think we should be wanting to burn devs at the stake for trying to make the money back. There are many ways to do it. So far I have not seen anything worth getting upset over. They don't deserve the cut no. I never said they did. You, however, don't deserve a tiny insignificant sewer level either. Or multiplayer. Most of the time the publishers/devs don't hide these things from us. YOu pay anyway, you get what you get.

I however don't have any issues with them trying to get money off of a used sale. Especially since it's optional. When it becomes a needed payment in order for the game to function then I will be right behind you with the torches.

Your argument is tiresome as well. It's a smoke and mirror argument that was thought up by some PR guy, which has somehow been picked up by a lot of gamers. Videogames are no longer a niche product. There are almost as many households equipped to play them now as there are that are equipped to watch movies. Further, games also have multiple revenue streams: Xbox, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, PC hardcopy, PC digital distribution, and now, console digital distribution as well. These are all just as different in terms of revenue streams as theaters, pay per view, and DVDs are. As for the $40 thing, people don't avoid buying games at $60 because it's not a deal. They avoid buying at $60 because they literally can't afford it. It's not in the budget. You industry apologists get all annoyed when consumers aren't worried about the publisher's bottom line, but you don't seem to care about the consumer's bottom line at all. Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

So I'm supposed to feel bad for you because you cant afford luxuries? I'm sorry. But that's another fallacy to the board. If 60 isn't in the budget, why is 40? You could use that 40 to buy more food for your family. Save up for your children's schooling. Saving 20 dollars isn't going to do you a whole lot of good.

Also those are not alternate revenue streams. I'm not going to buy the same game for 360 and PS3. Just like I wouldn't buy a movie on blu-ray and DVD. So that is all sorts of flawed.

It's silly to accuse me of not caring about the consumers bottom line, when it's not something they need to still exist. Excuse me if that wasn't clear in common sense. However, the devs are the ones I'm worried about. Not the publishers. The publishers own tons of devs though, so to worry about the devs, I have to worry about the publisher. Else they both go out of business.

Because video games are a luxury in the same sense that CDs and DVDs are, and most people can afford those. Video game companies think they're more on the order of a ticket to a major theme park, which is just silly.

 

[Staskala]

Well, the hard part is quantifying all those "soft factors".
How many people buy the sequel new if they liked a game they bought used?
How many people see the used games market as insurance and how would its abolishment affect their behavior?
How important is playing a game on launch day and how many people could be coerced to do so?
How many satisfied used games customers engage in positive mouth-to-mouth propaganda and thus secure new customers?
[...snip...]

And how are ANY of those arguments different when you replace "used games" with "pirated games" ?
THAT was the main idea all throughout this thread.

The ones that don't apply to piracy?
"How many people see the used games market as insurance and how would its abolishment affect their behavior?"
You know, the thing I've reposted like 3 times now?
"The fact that a game can be traded in is part of its value to the customer. If he couldn't trade them in, he wouldn't buy as many games.
Abolishing the used games market takes away a key "feature" of a game, which in turn would decrease its value (again, to the customer) and reduce demand. Plain and simple. The existence of the used games market is insurance that even if you're not financially stable or if you buy a bad game, there's always a way to get back part of your invested money."
The rest is just additional and I don't see how parallels to piracy somehow dispute everything else I said. And since when do pirates not play on launch day or as close to it as possible? People who buy used games are one of the few groups that have no incentive to do so.

They're not really bringing ANYTHING to the game makers now, when looking at overall cashflow, so it doesn't really matter whether they buy used or pirate.

Yes they do, additional value to new games, and thus an increase in demand, i.e. "cashflow". See above.

In fact, it's BETTER FOR THE GAME MAKERS IF THEY PIRATE, because this means they can use more of their money ON NEW GAMES, as opposed to only using a small portion of them on new games, while the majority goes to used games instead.

There's certainly some truth in that, but an industry doesn't only consist of one party, the retailer is just as much a part of it as the publisher.
That's the key difference between piracy and used games. Used games benefit everyone, mostly the retailer and the customer but also the publisher, again, see above. Piracy benefits absolutely no one, not even the customer in the long run who sacrifices any influence on the industry for short term money gain. The person who buys used still influences the price of used copies, thus their trade-in value and thus the new games market.

Look, there's really no hard proof either way, no matter how convinced you are that the "hard facts" work in your favor (unless you have proof that only a dismissive amount of people buys new games because they can trade them in). I don't think we'll reach any agreement other than the solution, so I'd rather not continue because we're just going in circles.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

Again buying all the stuff I mentioned used has NO COMPANY DOING ANYTHING TO LOCK IT OUT. If I elect to buy it used from someone fine I am expecting it to not be perfect, but I shouldn't have a publisher locking crap out. How would you feel if the car company who made your car came to your house and RIPPED out your radio? It's the same thing game publishers are doing.

yet again i need to point this mundane point out: digital property != physical property, you simply can not compare them.

That's a myth perpetuated by software companies. In reality, they work exactly the same way unless the distribution is completely in the digital realm. Books are every bit as much intellectual property as software is, but the publishing companies never tried to make up special contracts to protect them from the consumer, because existing copyright laws already did that. That's right -- if something is copyrighted, it's already illegal to make unauthorized copies of it. EULAs are completely unnecessary to protect that.

the fuck?
books and digital things are the same, they are both information.
a car however has worth in that its actually made of thing like metal etc.
you can't compare something like the information to make a car to the car it's self.
you can copy information easily, you can't do the same with a car.
if you could I'd be outside right now copypastaing Ferraris and giving them away laughing my ass off.

 

[oplinger]

Because video games are a luxury in the same sense that CDs and DVDs are, and most people can afford those. Video game companies think they're more on the order of a ticket to a major theme park, which is just silly.

CDs and DVDs are just trying to make up the difference. Not be the singular revenue stream. If games had other ways to make money, the price would drop, as they project the income for the other revenue sources.

So yes. They do need to be more expensive. They are the sole supporting pillar for the financial stability of the company.

If it's a luxury you can't afford. It's a luxury you can do without.

 

[Skratt]

Simple solution is simple. Used games give a cut back to the publisher up to say, one year after the original release date.

Not too tough to figure out is it?

 

[Lucane]

Just because you're trading something in doesn't mean you're buying new copies.Actually someone could have never purchased a new copy ever and played any non-downloadable only game either by burrowing it,receiving it as a gift or buying a used copy which equals a life time of playing games and not one red cent going to the developers.

Yes, but again, the existence of the used games market directly affects the people who buy new.
"The fact that a game can be traded in is part of its value to the customer. If he couldn't trade them in, he wouldn't buy as many games.
Abolishing the used games market takes away a key "feature" of a game, which in turn would decrease its value (again, to the customer) and reduce demand. Plain and simple."

A customer always buys the whole package, someone who trades games in, takes the money and then doesn't buy a new game for half a year probably wouldn't have bought any game at all if he didn't know that he could trade it in later.
The existence of the used games market is insurance that even if you're not financially stable or if you buy a bad game, there's always a way to get back part of your invested money.

I'm not saying trading in/buying used is as bad as pirating

However, if enough people only bought used games to little revenue would be made by the actual game developers.A way to combat that issue is with online passes it helps insure even if only one copy is sold new and is passed around they can add to their profits instead of just second hand sellers making all the profit they make a few extra dollars from every person who wants that little bit of content.(extra/what some might call a required piece/mini story arc/ new outfits/etc.)At least they are giving it out for free (in a sense.) to the first person using the code instead of selling it to everyone.

 

[Braedan]

Therefore I say to you, Feel free to explain the radical similarities you believe exists between buying used and pirating.

Both DO NOT directly contribute any cash to the game makers.

Both DO contribute to indirect potential losses of revenue for that game, by having some of the people that would have eventually purchased the game new to adopt this alternative, cheaper version that makes no money for the game makers.

Both also DO contribute to some degree to potential gains in revenue for that game (or at least that game company) through word of mouth advertising.

Not enough similarities for you ?

The only noteworthy differences are that with pirating, used game resellers make no profit from it, while end users get their games essentially at negligible costs, so there's a whole lot more of them around.

A dubious distinction goes to per-used-game-buyer DLC purchases which are allegedly much higher than per-pirate DLC purchases, since there's a chance that overall (as in, the grand total sum), pirates might actually spend more money on DLCs they don't manage to download than the combined mass of second-hand game purchasers - I don't even know if anybody ever tried to collect that sort of data at all.

So publishers don't get to make money on something they don't own? I don't see how this is a problem.
I know the used car analogy is used all the time, but it still stands. No one gets a free ride in life. I don't buy used, never have. But calling it piracy, or even remotely close is ignorant. You have property, you can sell it how you like. Game companies have to play by the same rules everyone else does, and if they can't make money off this system it is not the problem of the consumer, it's the problem of the producer.

If they choose to use codes to lock away part of the game so be it, but they will get backlash, and some people will most certainly find ways to bypass this if they can, which in this case seems simple.

Companies should reward players for buying new, not punish them for buying used.

 

[Epona]

If everyone bought new, would the servers stay up forever? No? Then you entire point is meaningless. I say again, charging multiple times for a single copy of the game is a money grab.

That's actually a pretty hardcore logical fallacy. I was never implying that.

Jimmy buys a game new, plays it online for 3 and a half years then sells it because he's going off to college.

Joe Bob buys Jimmy's copy, and plays it online for 3 more years.

That's 6 and a half years of server uptime if they have a large enough fanbase to appease.

Crapsoft only projected the game would be popular for 2 years, so they budgeted that amount. They have to either eat the costs and gain the respect of over a million people, or destroy whatever shred of love their fans had for them, and close the servers. Any reasonable company would rather keep their fans, in order to sell more games later down the road.

Does that make any more sense to you? or are you going to mention how they still don't have to, even if they lose a million fans? And therefore a 500,000(if only 50% of the current fans buy used) drop in unit sales. ...Please don't start a company.

Does it make sense to you that if the company is only willing to allow 3 years of online play per new copy then they should make that clear on the packaging. Otherwise we are back to the point that they will shut the servers down whenever they feel like it and that makes it impossible to put a dollar value on the online portion. As it stands you could buy a game for $60 and the servers could shut down in a year and another game for the same price has servers that stay online for 5 years.

Trying to apply a dollar value to the online part would also mean applying a time limit (ie, $10 per year).

If companies aren't willing to support a single copy of a game for as long as the servers are up, then they shouldn't have an online option at all or they should charge extra for the online to all players. Maybe they could sell a new game for $60 with 1 year free online multiplayer and $10 a year after that while charging $10 to go online when you buy used. It's stupid to separate single player from multiplayer but that's the only way it makes sense to charge multiple times for a single copy.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

Alright...I'm gonna assume you're a pretty smart guy. You seem to have at least a smidgen of research ability (You read something.)

Now, here's the deal. It takes a lot of money to make a game. Say you spend 25 million dollars on a game, then sell it for 50 dollars retail. Saying whoever invested the money gets 100% of all sales, they still have to sell 500,000 copies of the game (a lot.) Now take into account the dev maybe sees 20% (being generous probably) which means the publisher (the guys who toss the cash around) make 80% of all revenue from the title, at 25 mil, they see 20 mil. So they need to sell an extra 100,000 copies. Some games need to sell 1 million copies just to break even.

Now that we've broken down that bit (it's important) let's talk about revenue streams. Movies have Theaters, DVD releases, syndication and merchandising. Most of their money comes from the theater, which is a singular place in which a person must go in order to see the film. Second place is DVD sales, which they usually put out then the theatrical release is dying down. (in order to maximize revenue of the product) and then syndication if a TV station wants the rights to air the movie to the public. They get loads of cash for all of them.

Music has concerts, which is similar to theaters, and radio, which is similar to TV syndication.

Games have.......your computer/console. Maybe merchandising if they have the spare cash. They have absolutely NO MORE revenue streams. In order to make up the cash, they have to sell more product. Else we flip our shit like this. If you buy the game used, they see no money, the publisher does not, the developer does not. If you pirate the game, they see no money, the publisher does not, the developer does not.

Now that you understand that, let me get one specific point out of the way, it has to do with economics and business. If your business makes no money, and still has expenses. You don't really get to be a company for much longer. And we cease to have games.

It's not about treating paying customers as criminals, it's about trying to not go under. This is why we have loads of DLC, project 10 dollar, and other initiatives to try and make money off of used sales (Used sales are the largest chunk out of revenue). No one gives a flying fuck about it though, so what they're doing is trying to entice you (heavily coax.) to buy the game new, so they can keep making games you like.

...That's about a basic blanket statement to cover the issue and it's context....any other questions?

The customer should not have to suffer for a developer's business practice. Instead they should find a way to lower the cost of creating said game in the first place, since they obviously cannot handle creating a game of that magnitude. This way they do not need to sell so many games to break even. If you can't make money creating games then you are doing it wrong! This is proven by the many people who are making games and making large coin. Don't make the customers suffer for your incompetence, or else you will suffer more later. Making a crappy game that someone doesn't want to hang onto is the largest loss of revenue that a developer will have, not used games...

 

[oplinger]

The customer should not have to suffer for a developer's business practice. Instead they should find a way to lower the cost of creating said game in the first place, since they obviously cannot handle creating a game of that magnitude. This way they do not need to sell so many games to break even. If you can't make money creating games then you are doing it wrong! This is proven by the many people who are making games and making large coin. Don't make the customers suffer for your incompetence, or else you will suffer more later. Making a crappy game that someone doesn't want to hang onto is the largest loss of revenue that a developer will have, not used games...

They've tried to lower costs. The technology of licensed engines, be it graphical or physical, is expensive for commercial use. Making your own from scratch is even more expensive. Paying highly skilled animators (..Many seem to be making 50k a year, starting.)Programmers, artists, writers. They all want a certain amount of money. Marketing materials need to be created, shipped...

It's hard to find a break, employees won't bend for changes in pay (if company A paid them X amount...company B should pay the same, if not more. More experience=more money after all.) Technology takes a lot of time tweaking and developing...so the costs for that go up dramatically as things get more advanced (especially if it has unique features, or large amounts of brand fame)

It's a pain in the ass.

So expenses are almost immobile. You're right though, it has to change. I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees. It's part of the reason we have a sharp rise in indie games now, besides easier ways to get them to people (I don't count the iPhone..or that stuff.) Eventually costs will lower though, we've just gone through some pretty rapid expansion, and no one really want's to back down from making the money off of it.

Does it make sense to you that if the company is only willing to allow 3 years of online play per new copy then they should make that clear on the packaging. Otherwise we are back to the point that they will shut the servers down whenever they feel like it and that makes it impossible to put a dollar value on the online portion. As it stands you could buy a game for $60 and the servers could shut down in a year and another game for the same price has servers that stay online for 5 years.

Trying to apply a dollar value to the online part would also mean applying a time limit (ie, $10 per year).

If companies aren't willing to support a single copy of a game for as long as the servers are up, then they shouldn't have an online option at all or they should charge extra for the online to all players. Maybe they could sell a new game for $60 with 1 year free online multiplayer and $10 a year after that while charging $10 to go online when you buy used. It's stupid to separate single player from multiplayer but that's the only way it makes sense to charge multiple times for a single copy.

Well you're thinking. I like that. However that's also not what I said. I didn't say they were like "Okay we give em 3 years then we burn everything!" I said they project the costs for 3 years, or however long they think it will stay financially viable. Which means they have the money on hand to keep them going for 3 years, as they don't think the game will stay popular for that long, or they'll release a new game that will take all the players away. If it goes over the projections, they either need a source of income from the consumer, or from another area of the company. I also never said they can't shut it down whenever they wanted...It would just be a bad idea if the game was popular.

As for them not having online at all, that's sort of extreme. They'll gladly support your game until they can't pay to support the servers. They aren't going to spend $20,000 just so you can a couple friends can play multiplayer once a week. However your payment model could probably work. I wouldn't be opposed to it, it could keep some games around longer, especially niche games on consoles.

 

[locoartero]

So I was reading the Escapist's article on the new ridiculous tactics the Rage dev team is using to make sure that people buy their game new, namely locking off certain sections of the single player campaign to people who buy the game used. Now, I realize that it's supposedly a small portion of the game, that most people won't see anyway. My rebuttal to that is that A) Of course the Rage team has to say that, so everyone won't pitch a fit and boycott the game, and B) If this practice is allowed to go on, where could it end up? Larger and larger sections might end up being cut from future games.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Rage has to make back its money. But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals? The game companies need to realize that people who buy games used are generally on a budget, and making it harder and harder for them to enjoy the games they buy used will make them less likely to buy the game at all, not more likely to buy the game new. It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

Excuse me, but I think every single thing here is wrong. The fact that developers want a return for their hard work does not undermine the artistic merit of any game or the mindset with which it was conceived, for most of this decisions are made upon the game's completion. Everyone always looks for arguments to justify what's convenient to them, and that's what you're doing here. Supose you work at some X place and sell thing Y to people. People resell it to other people and so forth. You get nothing, and lose a lot of money because potential customers now have zero interest in your product, for they've already gotten it for a lower price. Does anyone honestly purchase a game new after they've played it used just to support the developer?. I've never heard of this happening in my life. Not even once. Not even here.
From a developer mindset, they owe nothing to the people who buy used games, because they're not paying them, and not only that, this people are fucking them since they're depriving of potential customers. I wholeheartedly understrand developers taking mesures to erradicate this market and support them. While I do not, on the other hand, condone nor support any kind of DRM whatsoever. A game can be a beautiful work of art, but the artist musn't starve for it to be so. And most certainly, not get accused of being "greedy" for wanting fair retribution for what they've done. Wanting to get paid for doing your art does not diminish it's artistic value whatsoever, and I cannot stress this enough. You can complain about greed when useless DLC is put out, or crappy sequels, but not about something like this. As a Game Development Student, I think that in the future, I will very much adhere to this practise. If developers hate the used market, and want to see it gone, I support them. Being on a budget is no excuse. Videogames, and the machines that run them, are luxury items to begin with. Play less games, or get a better paying job. Our hobby is expensive, but that does not give us the right to punish the people making it all possible.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Because video games are a luxury in the same sense that CDs and DVDs are, and most people can afford those. Video game companies think they're more on the order of a ticket to a major theme park, which is just silly.

CDs and DVDs are just trying to make up the difference. Not be the singular revenue stream. If games had other ways to make money, the price would drop, as they project the income for the other revenue sources.

So yes. They do need to be more expensive. They are the sole supporting pillar for the financial stability of the company.

If it's a luxury you can't afford. It's a luxury you can do without.

Read my post above; the individual consoles, as well as the difference between digital distribution and hard copies, each make up a different revenue stream. Also, CDs are not just making up the difference. CDs are where the real money is made, at least for the labels; the individual artists may make most of their money on tours, but it's because the labels don't see much of the tour money.

Edit: Also, I don't care what the hardships on their end. From a consumer's stand point, the product they are selling is materially similar to a CD or a DVD. So similar, in fact, that they have no reason to cry if people start buying movies instead of videogames. Again, economics 101: alternative products.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

Because legal or not, both of used game buyers and pirates hurt them in the exact same way. With both used games and piracy, the company is being cut out of a sale, which is in turn, profit. In their eyes, they might as well be synonymous since the inevitable impact both have on the developer is equal (despite one being legally and not). Some game studios have even gone on record and said the used game market is actually MORE harmful to them than piracy Source!.

Either way you cut it, both result in someone playing the game with the developer making a grand total of zero dollars. One just happens to be legal, which doesn't make it any better in the eyes of a developer.

Then make a better game for cheaper to entice people to hang onto their games rather than trade them in. Make it seem like less of a loss to buy it in the first place. Is it any less legal to not be able to return a game if it is too bug free to play? Or simply a terrible game? Since when are game developers not able to be held accountable for their shoddy work?

 

[Naeo]

Game developers/publishers equate used game sales to piracy because in effect, on their end, it's the exact same thing. It's someone getting a copy of the game without any of the money whatsoever going towards the devs/publishers.

Granted, though, used game sales have a lot of appeal. Often the game is perfectly playable and many times cheaper, though Rage and probably later games will certainly try to "fix" this. Also, as there's nothing illegal about buying a used game (where piracy is pretty explicitly illegal) it attracts a large number of people, especially after a game has been out for a while and people have sold their copies back to the game stores for some cash/store credit to buy other games with. Since it's cheaper, it's not the consumer's fault for buying what often amounts to the same or nearly the same product for less money.

There is a solution, though. Have the publishers offer to buy back used games for comparable or better prices than most game stores, so that they can turn around and sell the used games back into the used game market for, again, comparable prices. Then they don't have reason to ***** about used games, since they ultimately see all of the profit. Of course, it's always possible that they would take basically mint condition discs and repackage them to be sold as "new". And they would probably also need a receipt for the game so people didn't start buying used games for cheap at EB Games or Gamestop or wherever and selling them back to the publishers for a huge profit--the receipt could be used to say "pay no more than this amount".

Also, what the fuck is this bullshit. Yesterday I had a captcha with font rotated 90 degrees so it ran from bottom to top and was unreadable, and now, I shit you not, there is Arabic in my captcha [http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Azgoth/RSL/captcha_bullshit.png]. Fortunately, it still let me post without typing in the arabic.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Used sales are the largest chunk out of revenue

....any other questions?

So then you support the fact that you should still pay full new price (even on a budget) for games that others have gotten bored of or deem that they don't deserve enough attention?

There has to be at least one method of customer feedback on games, and I see this as one of them.

I just wish I could have not bought modern warfare 2 in the first place.

This medium (and the market surrounding it) is still going to have to go through a growing phase in my eyes. Because until everyone is happy, stuff has to keep changing right? ;P

 

[Stall]

Then make a better game for cheaper to entice people to hang onto their games rather than trade them in. Make it seem like less of a loss to buy it in the first place. Is it any less legal to not be able to return a game if it is too bug free to play? Or simply a terrible game? Since when are game developers not able to be held accountable for their shoddy work?

That would be a straw man. That point has nothing to do with the core fact that a used video game sale and a pirated copy of the game have the same end impact on a developer. Please, attack the point directly instead of using a straw man if you wish to debate.