Log in or sign up to comment
328 Comments
Posted by Milkman

He's right. I borrowed Heavy Rain from a friend, beat it in 2 sittings and gave it right back. I would have been kind of annoyed if I had paid 60 dollars for it. Not that I think the game is bad, I actually like it a lot. But there simply was not enough content to justify it.

Posted by Konanda

@BoomSnapClap113 said:

@TEAMHOLT: Wait. Are you saying that Gamestop has the right to sell someone else's product 3,4,5 maybe even 6 times over and not give anything to the game devs / publishers. What are you even talking about. All this is doing is causing developers to stop caring about story drivin games as much as they do, and focus more on shitty multiplayer

It's sad that someone who puts so much work, effort, and heart into a story. Loses out on millions of sales they should be receiving for there work, to big game retailers such as Gamespot, EBgames, etc. They didn't make the product, why should they make an extra 40$ on half the sales they make?

Do you not understand how economics and ownership works?

Posted by Konanda

@Meowayne said:

But it's not the dev/pub's property.
It belongs to the person who bought it.

No. When you buy software, you buy a piece of physical storage medium and a license to use the software. The game itself is never your property, only the disc is. This distinction is important for companies' (sometimes successful) attempts to challenge end users' intent of selling the license to third parties.

If they (publisher) are concerned with other users without a license using their software they should come up with additional measures to protect their software and/or verify that the user has a license. If it is worth it to the user they'll buy a license, if it's not than they lose their sale. Lose too many sales and they won't make back their investment on establishing additional protection/verification.

Posted by NPfeifer

I read the first sentence and realized that Alex was trying far too hard to impress. Tone it down, buddy.

Posted by GristleMcThornbody

Although I agree that Fondaumiere comes off a bit whiny and hyperbolic, there really is no fault in his logic that needs to be reconciled.  

Fondaumiere is upset because he believes that if his game had been cheaper when it came out, more people would have bought it new instead of buying it used for $10 less than the usual price. Or to put it another way, if the industry standard price for retail releases were lower, he believes he would have sold more new copies of his game and made more money overall.   Or to break it down even simpler and take one more redundant step, Fondaumiere wants games to be cheaper, so people will buy them new more often.
 
However you want to break it down,  this seems like pretty firm logic to me, am I missing something?

Posted by manawatermelon

@GristleMcThornbody said:

Although I agree that Fondaumiere comes off a bit whiny and hyperbolic, there really is no fault in his logic that needs to be reconciled. Fondaumiere is upset because he believes that if his game had been cheaper when it came out, more people would have bought it new instead of buying it used for $10 less than the usual price. Or to put it another way, if the industry standard price for retail releases were lower, he believes he would have sold more new copies of his game and made more money overall. Or to break it down even simpler and take one more redundant step, Fondaumiere wants games to be cheaper, so people will buy them new more often. However you want to break it down, this seems like pretty firm logic to me, am I missing something?

Yeah, I don't know how Alex missed that.

Posted by NellyK

@outerabiz: Yup. Totally agree.

Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG

Oh the Rent is Too Damn High Party always makes me laugh.... 

Posted by NellyK

@OtakuGamer: You being a designer, it interests me to get your perspective on this whole issue. It seems to me that these big budget ventures just aren't being properly thought out. What I mean is, why would anyone put millions into a project like Heavy Rain that "might work" as opposed to "guaranteed to make gazillions" like COD? Movie studios only put big money into things they know will make monster profit or atleast make it back (hence all the remakes and sequels). How can any of these big budget dev houses sustain themselves as the market continues to splinter and move in multiple directions? If you can't make a better multiplayer shooter than COD or Halo, you're screwed. You can't make a profitable MMO because WoW owns that space. Make a platformer, and everyone calls it a Mario clone. The whole thing seems like industry cannibalism to me. Too many choices, too many games, way too expensive to stay cutting edge. Someone has to draw the shortest straw and lay an egg (and sadly close down). It really is survival of the fittest and every year, we read about devs (who make AWESOME games) shutting down. It's like the video game crash is happening all over again, except really slowly this time. The number of layoffs that we see week after week on gaming sites would suggest that the gaming crash is already happening but just in a real under the radar kind of way. It feels like, after the dust settles, the only thing left will be CoD, Halo, Gears, Wow, Mario, and the Indies. Does this mean in the future, game makers will have to do more with less? While I welcome that idea (because I think it forces game designers to get more creative), it's also a little sad because some great games will never reach their full potential on account of budget constraints. Thoughts?

Posted by lmenzol

that game was lame it was like a bad soap opera

Posted by TheMasterDS

@TEAMHOLT said:

@TheMasterDS said:

@patronics: The thing is a used couch is used and often in poor condition. There's no wear and tear that makes a used copy inferior to a new copy outside of stuff like Project 10 Dollar, which I consider to be the way to approach it. Hell, I think they should throw whole single player campaigns behind a project 10 dollar wall if you buy used. That'll show people thinking they can buy used without paying a cent to you.

Or everything should just be downloaded. Either or.

The condition doesn't matter, it's a basic principle that you don't get paid for one thing twice. You can't decide "Hrm, you know, I think I want MORE money from that thing I already sold" and hold out your hand. Nothing works that way, and for good reason.

The entire point of a free market economy is that businesses who can adapt and can offer value to people thrive while those who are bad at it fuck off. "Project 10 dollar" doesn't benefit consumers at all, and it screws over even new buyers who's copies of games are worth less on the after market as soon as they punch in their codes. That's just not okay. If a business needs to screw over or inconvenience consumers over to get by, then they're doing something terribly wrong and need to change or fuck off.

A lot of gamers seem to think that publishers are charity cases and have the right to survive, and that it would be the end of the world if they went under. Well, none of that is true. They are businesses, which means they need to persuade people to give them their money, and they never have the right to twist the consumer's arm. If big publishers like EA or Ubisoft go down because of used games, so what? Someone will take their place, and it'll probably someone who knows how to make money without pissing people off.

The difference between buying a used couch a used game is quite simple - a couch isn't a creative work. The main brunt of the work is spent creating it, whereas most of the work that goes into making a video game is designing and developing it, not printing discs. Thus when you pay money for a game, it is not for the disc, it is for the content. The content that someone (not Gamestop) payed a lot of goddamn money to make. If you think you should be able to enjoy content without the creator getting a taste just because you gave butt fucking Gamestop some money. Honestly, at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Posted by Pr1mus

@TheMasterDS said:

at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Pirates don't inject much needed money in a waning economy.

Posted by TEAMHOLT

HEY I HOPE YOU GUYS LIKE WALLS OF TEXT

@BoomSnapClap113 said:

@TEAMHOLT: Wait. Are you saying that Gamestop has the right to sell someone else's product 3,4,5 maybe even 6 times over and not give anything to the game devs / publishers. What are you even talking about. All this is doing is causing developers to stop caring about story drivin games as much as they do, and focus more on shitty multiplayer

Yes, I am. They absolutely do have that right. Once you buy the game, it's yours. Once you sell it to GameStop, it's theirs.

The extinction of single-player games has been something we've been fearing for years, but I can't say I've noticed a significant drop in single-player games, and publisher's plots to force multiplayer down people's throats hasn't worked out too well for them. Many (if not most) of the biggest games of the year are single player. Some of them have multiplayer tacked-on (Dead Space 2), but people have responded appropriately: Not giving a fuck about the multiplayer in Dead Space 2.

It's sad that someone who puts so much work, effort, and heart into a story. Loses out on millions of sales they should be receiving for there work, to big game retailers such as Gamespot, EBgames, etc. They didn't make the product, why should they make an extra 40$ on half the sales they make?

Because they offer people a service that they want, and there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about it (except when they try to sell you a opened game as "new"). Developers come up a lot when people speak against used games, but by the time a game hits shelves the developer has already been compensated for their work by the publisher. Yes, a poor selling game can still shutter a developer, but it's the publisher's responsibility to do everything they can to make sure a game is successful, not ours. Shadows of the Damned sold poorly, and was it because of used games? No, it was because their publisher didn't do a good job of selling the game, or it's because most people looked at the game and said "Nah, you can keep that". There are also cases where a game's sales aren't really bad, they just aren't enough to satisfy a publisher that's always looking for the next big hit; compare EA's attitude towards sales numbers of Mirror's Edge versus Atlus' attitude towards the sales of Catherine.

Here's what some consider the worst case scenario: A developer who made a really good, creative game gets shuttered because of poor sales. That sucks, but we're not talking about unskilled, uneducated workers who now have to scrape by for a new opportunity. The programmers and artists that make your games are educated, motivated, and experienced individuals. They will find a new job, and if they can't find a new job, they'll make one, like when Grim and Bizarre Creations got shut down. Where two studios died, four new took their place, and that certainly is not the worst case scenario.

The real worst case scenario is publishers not being allowed to fail because everyone is so scared for the poor developers. If businesses can't fail, the industry can't move forward.

Its crazy to say that story driving games have a "bad business model".

I agree with you 100%. Like I said, I think that idea is dead and we can stop being afraid of single-player gaming becoming a thing of the past. Multiplayer is neither the selling point nor the infinite money pit that some publishers thought it was. However, if you still fear for the future of single player games you should know that awful tactics like online passes aren't the solution, because used games aren't the problem. The problem is publishers not wanting to be smart or innovate, and hoping they can twist your arm and tell you what to do instead of taking risks and trying to change the way things work. Going back to the news story, out of the three million who've played Heavy Rain, one million sold their copies to recoup some of their investment and another million bought those copies at what they thought was a more reasonable price for what they were getting. None of those people did anything wrong, they just wanted value for their money. Sony are the ones who messed up when they decided to charge $60 for an eight hour long single player game like it's 1999 or some shit. I'm not making the argument that a concise, well made single-player experience can't be worth $60, but that is just a bad value to a lot of people and publishers need to face that.

Posted by TEAMHOLT

@Meowayne said:

But it's not the dev/pub's property.
It belongs to the person who bought it.

No. When you buy software, you buy a piece of physical storage medium and a license to use the software. The game itself is never your property, only the disc is. This distinction is important for companies' (sometimes successful) attempts to challenge end users' intent of selling the license to third parties.

I would bet that this is incorrect and that a game disc is more akin to a movie pressed onto film or a story printed into a book, but I'm not going to pretend that I know the law on this stuff. I will tell you this with absolute certainty: Nobody gives a shit. When I buy a game on a disc (or any medium on any media), that is a thing that I own. I perceive PC software differently; If I lose install CD of Photoshop, well I can just grab another one off of a torrent because fuck it, the serial number is what really matters and Adobe couldn't care less where I get the software so long as I have legally obtained the right to use it. Maybe you are right and video games and Photoshop are exactly alike in some legal sense, but that's not how anybody perceives it. Video games are things that you own, people want to have the same rights for games as they have with any of their other junk, and nobody contested this idea until publishers started crying foul.

Posted by BoomSnapClap113

@TEAMHOLT: You are clearly to smart and more well educate for me to argue with. I just have my opinion and thought to share it. Now that I got a new PC, I will be buying from Steam pretty much exclusively anyways. You make some great points, and have educated me a little more. (Could be takin as sarcasm, but no sarcasm intended.)

Posted by sephirm87

@Shaanyboi:

the truth is that game developers charge you extra to compensate for piracy. They charge you for the game,and then for the copies you make for your friends.

Posted by J4S0N

If the game wasn't a PS3 exclusive, he would have sold two million and one.

Posted by pavakah

I will not be made to feel bad about buying used games.

Furthermore, how many people buy a new game more readily because they know they can offset the cost by selling it afterwards? Hmm.

Posted by Jokers_Wild

@TEAMHOLT: Unfortunately the law doesn't care what you "think." It cares about what is legal. If you ever get arrested for something try telling the judge you didn't give a shit, see how that works out for you.

Posted by TEAMHOLT

@TheMasterDS said:

The difference between buying a used couch a used game is quite simple - a couch isn't a creative work. The main brunt of the work is spent creating it, whereas most of the work that goes into making a video game is designing and developing it, not printing discs. Thus when you pay money for a game, it is not for the disc, it is for the content. The content that someone (not Gamestop) payed a lot of goddamn money to make. If you think you should be able to enjoy content without the creator getting a taste just because you gave butt fucking Gamestop some money. Honestly, at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

So the work was intellectual instead of physical. I don't see how that makes a difference. Just because they do creative work doesn't mean they have a different set of rights from everyone else, and they still live in the same world that we all live in. They go to work, they get paid for that work, and they are entitled to nothing more than what their employers promised them.

If you've got an axe to grind against GameStop, fine. They are a bunch of buttholes, but moves against used games don't just hurt GameStop.

Posted by Gul_Pirak

He probably wasn't the one who decided the price of the game...

Posted by TEAMHOLT

@Jokers_Wild said:

@TEAMHOLT: Unfortunately the law doesn't care what you "think." It cares about what is legal. If you ever get arrested for something try telling the judge you didn't give a shit, see how that works out for you.

Point was, you're not going to make any headway in an argument against used games by citing that they're technically not possessions, because you're probably wrong and just about everybody thinks that argument is ridiculous.

Posted by HadesTimes

He basically made a five hour novelty art game. He has also admitted he doesn't play games in past interviews so maybe he isn't the best person to complain about costs. Next time, maybe he should put out an XBOX LIVE ARCADE GAME.

Posted by MrKlorox

He's right, games ARE too damn expensive. Especially short games like Heavy Rain.

Posted by TheMasterDS

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Pirates don't inject much needed money in a waning economy.

My point is that neither do people who buy used.

Posted by Detrian

Videogame website writer pens snarky article, misses entire point of thing he is reporting. Film at 11.

Posted by Pr1mus

@TheMasterDS said:

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Pirates don't inject much needed money in a waning economy.

My point is that neither do people who buy used.

You might want to rethink that...

Someone buy a used game in a retail store, which employs people, who earns a salary, which in turn uses said salary to buy various everyday goods bought in stores which themselves employ people, which... you get the point, ya know, economy.

You don't support the used game market, fine. To each his own. But don't compare people who buy used to pirates much less imply that pirates are better which the first comment i quoted does.

Posted by vinsanityv22

Games are not too expensive. Most gamers are just stupid. If they ARE too expensive, than either a)rent (Gamefly works great!) or b)be more responsible with your money. Go online, look for deals, buy it a few weeks later when it's $30 NEW ....the only way you're losing money buying games is if you're incredibly stupid and don't think about purchasing decisions very hard. In which case, stop wasting your parents' money, you stupid punks.

This is how Activision's put out something like 8 Call of Duty games in the past 6 years; they're appealing exclusively to the dumbest of the dumb. The most easily taken advantage of demographic out there. And unfortunately, they also seem to have a lot of disposable income....unless you're any other game, apparently. These tards only seem to buy Madden and COD new every year, trade them back in after 2 weeks, and then complain about everything else being too expensive.

There are too many stupid, stupid people out there in this country who don't think about their money.

Posted by teekomeeko

Reads headline; assumes Alex; yes Alex.

Posted by Levio

Boo hoo Mr. Game Developer.

Boo hoo.

Posted by sthusby

How about making a good game first? Come on, Heavy Rain was pretty shit. And it had the worst plot holes ever, and som of the worst voice acting I've ever heard, and that is kind of a deal breaker in a story driven game like HR was.

Posted by hoossy

@J4S0N said:

If the game wasn't a PS3 exclusive, he would have sold two million and one.

but if it wasn't.. it wouldn't have been the game it was, wouldn't have looked the way it did, and maybe wouldn't have been released to begin with.

Posted by TheMasterDS

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Pirates don't inject much needed money in a waning economy.

My point is that neither do people who buy used.

You might want to rethink that...

Someone buy a used game in a retail store, which employs people, who earns a salary, which in turn uses said salary to buy various everyday goods bought in stores which themselves employ people, which... you get the point, ya know, economy.

You don't support the used game market, fine. To each his own. But don't compare people who buy used to pirates much less imply that pirates are better which the first comment i quoted does.

Oh, I thought you meant the game business, you meant the economy in general. Well to that I say "Oh well." Besides, if a pirate doesn't spend 20 bucks at Gamestop he'll spend it elsewhere. It's not like he says "I want to buy a game" and the economy fairy comes down and gives him $20 that did not exist before to spend.

I want to say though, though I say used games and piracy and indistinguishable, and thus would imply that piracy was the more sensible option, I will say this for used games - it's a lot easier with consoles. Hell, though I make every effort to buy games I actually want new, when the end of the year rolls around the mood often strikes me to acquire the games of the year I half way sorta cared about through Gamestop. Whether this is alright is debatable - on one hand I didn't pay Rocksteady for Arkham Asylum, on the other I'm going to buy Arkham City day 1 provided it reviews well since I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. Darksiders 2 will also probably be purchased sooner rather than later so long as it looks better than the first. One can say, with justifications like that, that all will work itself out in the end.

However, these defenses are akin to those I hear from pirates who say "I don't have money" or "I use piracy as a way to demo games - I pay for those I deem to be solid" and that is my ultimate point. Arguably there's something noble there that allows them to seek out and reward those who have created the best content, just as there's something to using used games to catch up and get on a bandwagon that will pay off later. Thing is, the reality is that these justifications are all very contextual, and they vary from person to person. While there are some who try to be aware of the impact of their decisions, and support developers when they see fit, there are those who see used games as just desserts for the high price of games and will not humor 60 dollar purchases. For every pirate who wants to test out a little of everything to find what he wants to support, there are many who feel that piracy is just desserts for DRM. For everyone who buys Used Games or Pirates responsibly, there are those who just do it without thinking, and it is those who I take issue with.

Posted by ryanwho

Yep they should be 20-30 a pop. There's a market of people publishers don't even know about because they only buy used games at aorund 20-30 dollars. Sell new stuff at that price, and they enter the market.

Edited by Pr1mus

The best solution would be to lower the price of games faster. 60$ at launch and a month later drop it to 30$. I know plenty of games i would still buy day one and pay the big price for, even some that are single player only.

Most of my games i got when they became greatest hits at 20 or 30$. If for some reason a year after it's release a game is still 40 or more then screw it, i'll buy used. I'm willing to wait but there is a certain amount of decency that publishers should have.

Take Final Fantasy XIII for example. when aligning the launch on both consoles and in every market that game sold 3,5 million copies in its first week. It's been out of a year and a half now and is standing at 6.5 millions... so more then half in it's first week alone and another million or so in the next 3 weeks.. at that point there really was no reason to not drop the price.

That would also make the used game market look less ridiculous with games sold for 55$ 2 days after they came out.

Posted by TPoppaPuff

$60 for a new game is fair, but not for a $20 title like Heavy Rain

An 8-10 hour game with no replay value (or maybe an hour's worth to see some alterations to the ending) is not worth $60 and charging for a game with rental value is asinine and part of the reason "used" sales killed this game. Truth be told used sales wasn't the issue. Nobody bought bought this game at $55 either cause that would be almost as stupid as paying $60. Rentals and Gamefly are the source of those extra IDs with trophies. Hell, what about lent copies? Does that kill the industry too? Truth is if the game was worth anywhere close to $60 he would have seen more sales of the game. There's no multiplayer and nowhere near enough single player to keep people hooked. You know what game didn't get killed by used sales? Mass Effect 2. You know, the single-player game with 5-6x more content, higher quality cinematics (visuals are much better and the voice acting isn't laughably terrible) and ACTUAL REPLAY VALUE. And then there's the free online pass for new copies. The code (sold seperately for $15) gave you a bunch of integrated story content. The extra content in those multiple packs released for that code lasted as long as the entirety of Heavy Rain! And that's EXTRA content! That's not even including more integrated DLC sold seperately that came out in regular intervals and kept people hooked and not reselling copies of their game.

You want more sales for Heavy Rain? Sell it at an honest price. The game should've been download only and sold for $15, $20 max. Then again, you probably wouldn't have made as much money as you did by swindling those poor, uninformed souls who spent $60 on a rental.

I don't even hate the game, I'm just being honest.

Posted by MrKlorox

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

Posted by CatsAkimbo

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

How's that exactly? I thought rental companies pay a premium for the rights to rent out games, leading to more money in the pockets of developers. It's not like GameFly just picks up a hundred copies at Best-Buy and rents them to a thousand people.

Posted by Asurastrike

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

So you don't use Netflix, then?

Posted by Rongaryen

I like how Alex made the phrase "balls out ludicrous" sound professional.

Posted by Grillbar

to be honest i dont think that, that many people would have bought it new if it cost lets say 50 bucks instead

Posted by aspaceinvader

The only way i see the second hand market for games being wiped out is to make all game digital downloads only, that way they can never be sold on, In saying that, the price for digital downloads would have to come down a fair bit, no more $60 price tags for a game would be a start. Until this happens and there is a physical copy that you can hold and sell on, the second hand market will never be wiped out.

Posted by Dudevid

Alex Navarro's snarky cynicism can get a bit tiresome at times. Navarro's effectively saying Fondaumiere is being a hypocrite by bemoaning how expensive games are and then going on to demand more people buy his game despite that. Clearly Navarro's got it backwards; Fondaumiere's saying there's a bunch of people who didn't buy the game, and in an attempt to answer why, he's proffering that games are too expensive. The guy really doesn't deserve this kind of snickering sardonicism. It's not good journalism, and I don't expect it from Giant Bomb. At least Patrick Klepek wouldn't put out trite like this.

Posted by twillfast

@Dudevid said:

Alex Navarro's snarky cynicism can get a bit tiresome at times. Navarro's effectively saying Fondaumiere is being a hypocrite by bemoaning how expensive games are and then going on to demand more people buy his game despite that. Clearly Navarro's got it backwards; Fondaumiere's saying there's a bunch of people who didn't buy the game, and in an attempt to answer why, he's proffering that games are too expensive. The guy really doesn't deserve this kind of snickering sardonicism. It's not good journalism, and I don't expect it from Giant Bomb. At least Patrick Klepek wouldn't put out trite like this.

Agreed. Alex seems to only want to write articles where he can dispute wildly. While I think criticism is very much needed in any business, cynisism and arguing for the hell of it is really not something we need.

I partly agree with de Fondaumiere, but maybe he's a bit excessively cynic too.

Posted by Tennmuerti

I don't like Heavy Rain.

But this seems like a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of what the person was trying to say and read like tabloid journalism. It was honestly an unpleasant article to read.

Posted by PenguinDust

This can all be solved by every game sold being registered to a single console that way no game can be rented or shared with friends. That's where we're going, isn't it?

Edited by Pepsiman

@CatsAkimbo said:

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

How's that exactly? I thought rental companies pay a premium for the rights to rent out games, leading to more money in the pockets of developers. It's not like GameFly just picks up a hundred copies at Best-Buy and rents them to a thousand people.

This is correct. Legally speaking, the sort of license you get as a consumer with a commercial product tends to be different than that which a corporation gets and it's all because of intent. An average joe who picks up a game at that aforementioned Best Buy is legally allowed by the developer/publisher to use it only for personal, private purposes such as actually playing the game in their own home. The customer agrees to not use the game as a means of making a (significant) profit or in a business context and, in exchange, has the right to play that game for as much as they like. By opening the box and putting the disc in the system, they agree to this whether they know it or not.

Conversely, companies like GameFly, which take these same games and use them in a profit-making context, have to agree to a separate legal contract based on the extent and purpose for taking that game and using it to make money. Instead of simply buying the game as a means to entertain oneself, the game is being bought as a means of supporting a business model, which, in GameFly's case, involves making money repeatedly off of the same stock of copies they have. They're using someone else's product to survive and make a profit and that legally means that the creators are entitled to have a share of that.

This sort of stuff is almost always covered in the end user license agreements that appear in manuals and/or when the game starts up (or even in a menu option, in some instances.) If you take the time to read them, there tends to be a dedicated section specifically set up for the purpose of describing rental clauses, which can be basically summarized as "it's prohibited without prior written permission." Any legitimate rental business has to have agreements with (presumably) each game's publisher to set up an appropriate royalty stream that then gets siphoned back to the developers. If this wasn't the case, you could bet that a service with as prominent of advertising as GameFly would have faced litigation by now and lost.

All of this is also deeply related to fair use laws and, in turn, affects why GameStop is able to keep doing what it's doing without much in the way of significant repurcussions, but I'll just stick exclusively to the topic of rentals. As a very slight tangent, though, these legal hurdles for rentals are also the exact same case for movie services, too, from Netflix to Blockbuster.

Posted by Rasgueado

"Furthermore, de Fondaumiere is essentially complaining that two million copies of a game sold is somehow detrimental to his studio's health."

Really Alex? I though he was lamenting the notion that 1 million people can play their game without them seeing any money for it.

There are enough issues to take to task here without painting this guy like a cry baby. He has a vallid concern, and he adresses it directly by stating the issue stems from selling a physical medium that can be easily re-sold or rented from video stores.

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

Edited by MrKlorox

@Pepsiman: Oh so royalties still do get paid per rental? If that's the case, then it's not as bad as I was thinking. I was under the assumption that rental services simply paid a lot more per copy for the right to rent, but didn't pay any royalties beyond that.

Posted by Corvak

The games industry wants to live in some sort of dream world, where people just give them truckloads of money every year.

Saying that used games are equal to piracy is like saying eBay and Craigslist are equal to breaking into someones house and stealing their TV.

I don't often buy used games. But since retailers seem to want to get rid of a product six months after it's release, i'm often forced to do so.