Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
UUSED GAMS
Posts
kentona
View playlists
Closeauthor=faceless007author=Open SourceIf it were the case for movies and games, then yes, I'd favor similar measures by music/movie industries to protect themselves against it.
Originally Posted by Open Source: If the secondhand market is not having a major detrimental effect on the primary market, then why would it need to be addressed?
Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.
I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.
The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.
I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.
So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.
Last edited by faceless007; 05-27-2013 at 09:02 AM.
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=59545309&postcount=1361
I have only ever sold a used game ONCE but have bought a handful, but this post at neogaf sums up my views that I don't know what to add. I want to share it though.
What I want to know is what they expect people to do with the games they don't want. Keep them on a shelf, unused and gathering cobwebs? Discus practice? Throw them in the trash? Will they start paying ecological bills for the amount of idiotic game discs that are sent to the tip? Not bloody likely.
Better to let people do the ol' resell and swap. Not like they didn't already get their money on the first sale; it's just plain ridiculous that they expect it on a resale.
Better to let people do the ol' resell and swap. Not like they didn't already get their money on the first sale; it's just plain ridiculous that they expect it on a resale.
Dyhalto
7536
The best point he makes is that big industry games are high on graphics and low on fun, lending to a single playthrough and forgetability, hence why people are quick to part with their games at the local trade-in.
TDS
1453
author=Liberty
What I want to know is what they expect people to do with the games they don't want. Keep them on a shelf, unused and gathering cobwebs? Discus practice? Throw them in the trash? Will they start paying ecological bills for the amount of idiotic game discs that are sent to the tip? Not bloody likely.
Better to let people do the ol' resell and swap. Not like they didn't already get their money on the first sale; it's just plain ridiculous that they expect it on a resale.
I don't think the problem is with people selling their own games, but shops prioritizing the sales of used games which in turn could prevent the sale of new games and gives the shop more profit.
It may not seem like a huge problem, but when you factor in the fact that most people can finish a game in a few days then resell it, then it essentially becomes a rental of sorts that returns to the shop and can be sold again and again for some pretty good profit (Usually 5$ less than new when it's bought back at less than the original price).
so make games people would want to play again and again.
or reduce the price of your original game, thus lowering the incentive to resell the game. (less money for resell == lower incentive to make the effort to resell)
or reduce the price of your original game, thus lowering the incentive to resell the game. (less money for resell == lower incentive to make the effort to resell)
TDS
1453
author=kentona
so make games people would want to play again and again.
or reduce the price of your original game, thus lowering the incentive to resell the game. (less money for resell == lower incentive to make the effort to resell)
There are only so many ways to make a game consistently fun and replayable to the point where a person will not sell it. It's easy to just say make it so, but not so easy in practice when you're dealing with an often very sporadic audience.
And again, I thought that the problem lied in shops prioritizing the sales of used games by aggressively pushing to sell them to make better profits and not because players grew tired of the game and just sold it.
author=LibertyThe Xbox One will have a built-in used game trade and resale service over Xbox Live. I assume that's what they expect you'll do with them.
What I want to know is what they expect people to do with the games they don't want. Keep them on a shelf, unused and gathering cobwebs? Discus practice? Throw them in the trash? Will they start paying ecological bills for the amount of idiotic game discs that are sent to the tip? Not bloody likely.
Better to let people do the ol' resell and swap. Not like they didn't already get their money on the first sale; it's just plain ridiculous that they expect it on a resale.
I imagine you'll probably get a better deal there than at Gamestop.
or reduce the price of your original game, thus lowering the incentive to resell the game. (less money for resell == lower incentive to make the effort to resell)That's not really viable for retail games, because something like $40-50 of the price tag on a game that shows up in a brick and mortar store is consumed by the physical manufacturing, shipping, licensing of the retailer, and the shelf space. There's not actually much wiggle room that developers have when it comes to pricing.
I don't see how that is an issue. For the there to be a used game to sell at all, it would have had to been an original sale at some point first! So that means that the publisher/dev has already been paid for that first sale. What claim do they have for any subsequent sales?
TDS
1453
author=kentona
I don't see how that is an issue. For the there to be a used game to sell at all, it would have had to been an original sale at some point first! So that means that the publisher/dev has already been paid for that first sale. What claim do they have for any subsequent sales?
Alright, let me put it in a way you might understand.
-RMN decides to create games in-house to support their website.
-They create a game which is pretty good and go to a retailer and strike a deal to sell physical copies.
-The game sells relatively well, but below the expectations of RMN even though it seems a lot of people are buying it and playing it.
-RMN Discovers that the retailer is buying back copies from people who are done using it at a really low price and pushing them instead of the new ones.
-This means that RMN who only gets money from new sales now has to watch how their game is being sold at almost the price of a new copy while they get nothing.
-They saw some influx of money at first, but not enough to really cover their expenses and now their plan to create games to support their website has turned into a possibly huge debt.
-RMN is a really good place and it's great that they're making games to keep their site going, but it's not my problem they're not making the money they expected to make, and hey at least they got money from that first sale, right?
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Answer: Don't make shit games. Why is this suddenly an issue? Because the industry has become so large and expensive that it has forced itself into a stagnant corner in which to stay alive.
Rome was pretty damn sweet for a while. They had everything, and plenty of land to throw it around on. Economy was good, politics and education the likes of which the world had never seen before. Yet, it fell as it became too large to maintain and resources were spread too thin. Political interests became more fragmented and eventually failed.
The future can be found in the example of Rome, overstep your means and the earth will soon overstep you. If we want to survive, we have to create more than we use, which is physically impossible. Where the game industry lies in all this remains to be seen, but it seems to be falling as fast as it grows.
The answer lies in that which can be created by man, technology, yet we're still bound by the perceived need of a physical game. If businesses were able to simply sell their product straight from themselves in a digital format and still see the same or greater profits than they see now, more risks could be taken to escape the comfort-zone stagnation we've found ourselves in; and while other businesses that specialize in retail would obviously take a hit, the future of the gaming industry would be much brighter than the shadowing storm that lies on the unaltered horizon.
Besides, what did large retail stores do before selling video games? That's right, they sold food, furniture, and all those other wonderful things that make a comfy life at home possible. If they return to those roots, they'll survive in the long-run.
Rome was pretty damn sweet for a while. They had everything, and plenty of land to throw it around on. Economy was good, politics and education the likes of which the world had never seen before. Yet, it fell as it became too large to maintain and resources were spread too thin. Political interests became more fragmented and eventually failed.
The future can be found in the example of Rome, overstep your means and the earth will soon overstep you. If we want to survive, we have to create more than we use, which is physically impossible. Where the game industry lies in all this remains to be seen, but it seems to be falling as fast as it grows.
The answer lies in that which can be created by man, technology, yet we're still bound by the perceived need of a physical game. If businesses were able to simply sell their product straight from themselves in a digital format and still see the same or greater profits than they see now, more risks could be taken to escape the comfort-zone stagnation we've found ourselves in; and while other businesses that specialize in retail would obviously take a hit, the future of the gaming industry would be much brighter than the shadowing storm that lies on the unaltered horizon.
Besides, what did large retail stores do before selling video games? That's right, they sold food, furniture, and all those other wonderful things that make a comfy life at home possible. If they return to those roots, they'll survive in the long-run.
author=TDSauthor=kentonaAlright, let me put it in a way you might understand.
I don't see how that is an issue. For the there to be a used game to sell at all, it would have had to been an original sale at some point first! So that means that the publisher/dev has already been paid for that first sale. What claim do they have for any subsequent sales?
-RMN decides to create games in-house to support their website.
-They create a game which is pretty good and go to a retailer and strike a deal to sell physical copies.
-The game sells relatively well, but below the expectations of RMN even though it seems a lot of people are buying it and playing it.
-RMN Discovers that the retailer is buying back copies from people who are done using it at a really low price and pushing them instead of the new ones.
-This means that RMN who only gets money from new sales now has to watch how their game is being sold at almost the price of a new copy while they get nothing.
-They saw some influx of money at first, but not enough to really cover their expenses and now their plan to create games to support their website has turned into a possibly huge debt.
-RMN is a really good place and it's great that they're making games to keep their site going, but it's not my problem they're not making the money they expected to make, and hey at least they got money from that first sale, right?
But I have no right to complain about this. Am I supposed to get special treatment because I made a videogame?
TDS
1453
author=kentona
But I have no right to complain about this. Am I supposed to get special treatment because I made a videogame?
You do have a right to complain Kentona. You made a deal with them to sell your product and they're cutting you out of it by buying it back from people at a lower price and reselling it at a premium just to avoid paying you.
I really hope you're not so dense as to allow yourself to be robbed like that because you think the customer should get the best deal. You know it's not right for a company to agree to sell your product which you had to pay to print and promote just to watch them cut you out of your deserved profit.
And with that, I'm done. I don't think I can see you considering my point of view beyond this if you still think that what they're doing is right and all the fault lies with the creator.
I am not dense and would ask that you refrain from calling me dense in future discussions.
So... you're saying that I should get incensed at the retailer for selling used games? I made an agreement with the retailer to sell my game. They held their end of the bargain and sold my games. If they chose to also participate in the used games market that is beyond my control and my purview. There is nothing I can (or should) do directly about this with that retailer. I can't nor shouldn't control how that retailer conducts business to that degree.
What I can do is what is in my direct control - I can choose to become a direct retailer myself, or I can get into the business of used games myself (like it is rumored that the Xbone is attempting), or I can make games that people wouldn't want to resell, and/or not want to resell until a future time that that game's resell value has dropped significantly.
Going after the retailer (and thereby consumers) for selling used games is a bad idea.
So... you're saying that I should get incensed at the retailer for selling used games? I made an agreement with the retailer to sell my game. They held their end of the bargain and sold my games. If they chose to also participate in the used games market that is beyond my control and my purview. There is nothing I can (or should) do directly about this with that retailer. I can't nor shouldn't control how that retailer conducts business to that degree.
What I can do is what is in my direct control - I can choose to become a direct retailer myself, or I can get into the business of used games myself (like it is rumored that the Xbone is attempting), or I can make games that people wouldn't want to resell, and/or not want to resell until a future time that that game's resell value has dropped significantly.
Going after the retailer (and thereby consumers) for selling used games is a bad idea.
First Sale Doctrine has been around for longer than video games and everybody else has to deal with this fundamental level of consumer rights. Video games aren't a magical unicorn that will wither and die if FSD is enforced, its a consequence of being a business in the market of selling a product. If you purchase a product you should and are free to sell it to a third party without consent from the original copyright owner even if said third party is in the market of reselling said material.
Used games are just another boogeymen dreamt up as an excuse for lack of sales. I imagine user reviews will become the next scapegoat in the wave of
when the next mAAAx budget multi-million seller game is deemed a failure on their controlled platform instead of any meaningful introspection.
Used games are just another boogeymen dreamt up as an excuse for lack of sales. I imagine user reviews will become the next scapegoat in the wave of
Shinan
4314
As a PC gamer I've given up my my right to sell my games a long time ago. Though I'll be honest I don't really care so much about the used games market. Though I agree that it should exist.
However these schemes affect a bunch of other things too. It's only in recent times that libraries finally have made an effort to add games to their libraries (hurr hurr) and now that possibility seems to be taken away from them.
Also the sharing of games is hurt. It is always a bit annoying when I've played a game on steam and I'd love some buddy to try it but I can't really lend it to them because it's tied to my account and now the xbone also has that.
Of course on the other hand it's also terribly convenient to be able to log in anywhere and have your games right there. Of course it's less likely that you have multiple xbones lying around where you want to download your games but... well... Maybe you won't need discs anymore at least.
However these schemes affect a bunch of other things too. It's only in recent times that libraries finally have made an effort to add games to their libraries (hurr hurr) and now that possibility seems to be taken away from them.
Also the sharing of games is hurt. It is always a bit annoying when I've played a game on steam and I'd love some buddy to try it but I can't really lend it to them because it's tied to my account and now the xbone also has that.
Of course on the other hand it's also terribly convenient to be able to log in anywhere and have your games right there. Of course it's less likely that you have multiple xbones lying around where you want to download your games but... well... Maybe you won't need discs anymore at least.
If I made a good game then there wouldn't be 100000 resale copies to sell, thus I wouldn't be undercut by my own product. Sure, there's always some buy-back, but the better the game, the less buy-back that occurs. The 'industry' is pissed because they can't create half-arsed games without losing their cut on their own repurchased games. Quality games = less resales = more initial money for them. Fuckers.
I made an agreement with the retailer to sell my game. They held their end of the bargain and sold my games...
If what TDS said is true, no, they're not holding their end of the bargain. If they're giving priority to the sale of used games they're essentially screwing you over. Shouldn't they liquidate all the new copies before they start reselling the used ones? ...I have nothing against the practice per se, but like with everything, there's comes a point in which it kinda becomes a dick move.
...and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model...
This is the same line of 'logic' that you hear from people who try to justify piracy: "Is their fault for making expensive games" And that's just silly. First of all, companies don't owe us anything. Lots of work, time and money already go into making games, and we should start valuing them more. People earn their living this way, they don't do it just for us... Second of all, nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. If you really don't like a company's prices/services you can surely do without them. Support other companies instead; small studios, indie developers, etc. There'are plenty of alternatives out there that don't require you going around other people's wishes.
amerk
2539
Piracy and legally selling/buying a used game are two different things. However, I'm seeing both sides of this issue as objectively as I can. However, I don't think this is a good win for X-Box because:
1. The used market will remain. There are people who will only buy used, and if you take the products away from one spot, they'll go to another. That means if I can't buy used games for XB1, I'll likely go with another platform that will still allow used games.
2. The used market retail may or may not suffer depending on how they cut their losses. They may continue to support XB1 games, but I'll bet their primary focus will be on the other platforms that allow used games without prejudice.
3. If I'm in the market to buy a new console, the used store retail may try to persuade me to buy something other than XB1. Or if a game is on multiple platforms (let's say XB1 and PS4, although we don't know how PS4 will handle used games yet), and I own at least 2 of those platforms, I might be easily persuaded to buy the game for the other platform, assuming it's rules about purchasing/selling used games is more flexible.
While we've yet to hear what Sony is planning, this could give them a unique handling in taking back the market like they did from Nintendo and Sega. All Sony has to do is listen to the feedback and do the opposite of what XB1 is doing when it comes to reselling games. Don't get me wrong, I doubt Sony is in it for the consumer anymore than MS is. However, they'd be really stupid to ignore this entirely. If continued allowance of selling used games drives more people to their consoles than XB1, why not?
1. The used market will remain. There are people who will only buy used, and if you take the products away from one spot, they'll go to another. That means if I can't buy used games for XB1, I'll likely go with another platform that will still allow used games.
2. The used market retail may or may not suffer depending on how they cut their losses. They may continue to support XB1 games, but I'll bet their primary focus will be on the other platforms that allow used games without prejudice.
3. If I'm in the market to buy a new console, the used store retail may try to persuade me to buy something other than XB1. Or if a game is on multiple platforms (let's say XB1 and PS4, although we don't know how PS4 will handle used games yet), and I own at least 2 of those platforms, I might be easily persuaded to buy the game for the other platform, assuming it's rules about purchasing/selling used games is more flexible.
While we've yet to hear what Sony is planning, this could give them a unique handling in taking back the market like they did from Nintendo and Sega. All Sony has to do is listen to the feedback and do the opposite of what XB1 is doing when it comes to reselling games. Don't get me wrong, I doubt Sony is in it for the consumer anymore than MS is. However, they'd be really stupid to ignore this entirely. If continued allowance of selling used games drives more people to their consoles than XB1, why not?
author=kentona
so make games people would want to play again and again.
The "again and again" part is the reason developers have been pushing for multiplayer components in games, to keep consumers from immediately returning the product for store credit. You've voiced your position on multiplayer gaming pretty clearly.
A fundamental difference between digital products and physical ones is that a used game has no depreciation in quality. This is something to consider. Regardless of how principled anybody thinks they are, there are practical ramifications to every option.
